The main legal point established in the judgment is the State's power to declare a monument as a 'protected monument' under the Rajasthan Monuments, Archaeological sites and Antiquities Act, 1961, and the requirement to provide an opportunity of hearing and decide the matter within a specified timeframe.

R. S. CHAUHAN, J.

( 1 ) SENTINELS of our past, repository of our culture and heritage, forts and palaces dot the hills and desert of rajasthan. One such fort is the fort of chomu, a town situated thirty-three kilometers from jaipur. Scion of the royal family of Jaipur State, the Nathawats started the construction of the fort in the 17th century, and extensively enlarged it in the 18th century. The fort houses a palace complex and the fortress walls ("the Parkota") and a ditch ("the Khai" ). The fort is the bone of contention between the petitioners and the state. Vide Notification dated 28-3-78, published on 8-4-1978 in the Rajasthan Gazette, the State had declared the fort to be a "protected monument" under Section 3 (4a) of the Rajasthan Monuments, Archaeological sites and Antiquities Act, 1961 (henceforth to be referred to as the State Act, for short ). The petitioners are challenging the validity of the said notification. They are also challenging the letter dated 16-9-81, whereby the objections filed by the petitioners against the said notification were rejected by the state.

( 2 ) THIS case has had a checkered history. On 7-12-1972, the petitioners purchased the said fort, through five registered sale deeds, from the erstwhile royal family of Chomu. Subsequently, the petitioners rented out part of the fort to Shri Lakda Dal mill, a partnership firm for founding its Dal mill within the fort. The firm established not only factory in the fort, but also used it for the purposes of storerooms, offices and for residential accommodations. On 7-2-1973, the Secretary of the Congress Committee, chomu submitted a complaint to the then chief Minister claiming that the fort had been sold at a nominal rate and the premiss were being misused. The said complaint was also endorsed to the Director, Archaeology and Museums, Rajasthan. It was requested that the State should acquire the said fort and stop the misuse of the premises. A year later, on 16-3-1974, the Director, Archaeology and Museums also submitted his inspection report to the Assistant Secretary of the chief Minister. According to the said report the erstwhile royal family of Chomu had sold the fort for a nominal price to the petitioners. It was also claimed that the petitioners were misusing the buildings and structures of the fort. Two years later, on 15-4-1976, the Director, Archaeology and Museums recommended to the State to protect the said fort under the provisions of the State Act.

( 3 ) WHILE the recommendation was pending with the State, the petitioners sold off part of the outer wall ("the Parkota"), the ditch (the khai) surrounding the fort and part of the land inside the fort to the Krishi upaj Mandi, Chomu for establishing the krishi Upaj Mandi under thee Rajasthan agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961. Thus, the Krishi Upaj Mandi, established by the government, bought the aforementioned parts of the fort. Interestingly, the Krishi upaj Mandi, run by the Government, subsequently demolished part of the rampart ("the Parkota"), filled the ditch, constructed road thereupon, and constructed shops for the benefit of the traders of the market. Hence, the Mandia Government run organization, itself began the systematic demolition of the fort. But, taking the commendation of the Director, Archaeological and museums in earnest, the State, using its power under Section 3 (4a) of the State Act, declared the fort as a "protected monument" vide Notification dated 28-3-1978 published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 8-4-1978.

( 4 ) ON 27-5-1978, the petitioners filed their objections before the Commissioner -cum-Secretary, Department of Education, as at that moment the Department of Archaeological and Museums was under the Education Department. Vide letter dated 16-2-1981, the petitioners were informed that they should appear before the Education minister on 28-2-1981. However, when they appeared, no hearing took place. They were assured that the next date would be inform