SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Raj) 424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sangeet Lodha,Rameshwar Vyas, JJ.
Girdhar Memorial Charitabale Trust, Jaisalmer Fort - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
Special Appeal Writ No. 302 of 2019
Decided on : 01-04-2021

Advocates appeared:
Siddharth Joshi, Advocate, Khet Singh Rajpurohit, Advocate, Nitesh Mathur, Advocate, B.S. Sandhu, Advocate

The repair works and installation of doors in a protected area constituted 'operation of like nature' and material alteration of the building, attracting the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1958 and Rule 10 of the Rules of 1959.

Headnote:

Ancient Monuments - Violation of Section 19 of the Act of 1958 - Section 19(1) of the Act of 1958, Rules 19(1) & 33 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a charitable trust, challenged a notice to remove construction work of wooden doors and plaster work from an archaeological monument, claiming it was necessary repair work and did not warrant action under Section 19(1) of the Act of 1958.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the repair works and installation of doors constituted 'operation of like nature' in the protected area, attracting the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1958 and Rule 10 of the Rules of 1959.

Issues: The main issue was whether the repair works and installation of doors in the protected area violated Section 19 of the Act of 1958 and the Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the repair works and installation of doors constituted material alteration of the building, falling within the definition of 'construction' under Rule 2(a) of the Rules of 1959, and thus warranted action under Section 19(1) of the Act of 1958.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and directed the appellant to remove the doors at their own risk and cost, and further issued directions for regulating traffic in the Fort and removing encroachments.

Judgement Key Points

यह कानूनी दस्तावेज़ राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय का है, जिसमें जासलमेर फोर्ट के संरक्षण और उसमें किए गए कार्यों से संबंधित मामला है। इसमें बताया गया है कि पुरातात्विक स्थल पर किए गए मरम्मत और दरवाजों की स्थापना को संरक्षित क्षेत्र में निर्माण की तरह माना गया है, जो कानून के अनुसार अनुमति के बिना नहीं किया जा सकता। अपीलकर्ता, एक चैरिटेबल ट्रस्ट, ने तर्क दिया कि उन्होंने केवल मरम्मत का कार्य किया है और इसमें कोई संरचनात्मक बदलाव नहीं किया है। लेकिन अदालत ने पाया कि इन कार्यों से भवन में महत्वपूर्ण बदलाव हुए हैं, जो नियमों का उल्लंघन हैं। इसके परिणामस्वरूप, अपीलकर्ता को अपने खर्च पर दरवाजें हटाने का निर्देश दिया गया और संरक्षण के नियमों का उल्लंघन करने पर कड़ी कार्रवाई का संकेत दिया गया। इस प्रकरण से यह स्पष्ट होता है कि पुरातात्विक स्थल के संरक्षण के लिए कड़े नियम लागू हैं, और बिना अनुमति कोई भी निर्माण या बदलाव नहीं किया जा सकता।


JUDGMENT

Sangeet Lodha, J. - This intra-Court appeal is directed against order dated 26.2.19 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the notice dated 16.5.20 issued by the respondents to remove the construction work of wooden doors and plaster work etc. from Suraj Prol Gate inside the Jaisalmer Fort being violative of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (for short "the Act of 1958') and Rules 19(1) & 33 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 (for short "the Rules"), has been dismissed.

2. The appellant, a charitable trust, owns a property known as Suraj Prol which forms part of Jaisalmer Fort in the State of Rajasthan, is an archaeological monument. According to the appellant, it was in dilapidated condition and was requiring immediate repairs, had timely repair not carried out by the Trust, there was apprehension of said part of the building and structure collapsing and therefore, immediate steps were taken to get the plaster work done for reinforcing the existing structure so as to avoid further damage. Besides, the Trust also put wooden doors to stop entry of stray cattles in the open space of Suraj Prol. According to the appellant, no structural changes were made in the property and therefore, the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1958, which prohibits construction of building within the protected area without permission of the Central Government, are not attracted, however, the appellant Trust was served with a notice dated 16.5.2000 issued by the Superintending Archaeologist, the respondent no.2 herein, calling upon it to remove the said wooden doors and plaster work etc. from the Suraj Prol Gate on or before 25.5.2000. The appellant was informed that in the event of refusal or failure to comply with the notice within the period specified, order will be passed for removal of such unauthroised construction under the provisions of the Act of 1958 and the Rules. A reply to the notice was filed by the appellant on 20.5.2000.

3. The appellant apprehending the demolition of the repair works done, challenged the legality of the notice by way of writ petition before this Court, on the ground that the respondent no.2 has miserably failed to make out a case for passing an order under Section 19(2) of the Act of 1958. The appellant contended that what is prohibited by Section 19(1) is the construction of a building and thus, the repair works done for saving the building from further damage, does not warrant any action under the said provision. According to the appellant, the construction of building would always involve structural changes and the repair works does not fall within the definition of words "construction of the building".

4. On 2.4.02, the learned Single Judge while admitting the writ petition directed the parties to maintain the status quo as existing on that day.

5. A reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondents, taking the stand that name of 'Suraj Prol' being gateway of main approach road to Jaisalmer Fort, a place of public utility, is not included in the inventory of the erstwhile Ruler of Jaisalmer. Besides, in the inventory, it is specifically mentioned that the easements of way as were enjoyed by the people will continue to be enjoyed by them without let or hindrances. The said structure was never closed by the wooden doors and remained open for public. It was denied that the said Prol was in dilapidated condition and in any case, if such construction was required to be carried out, the appellant was under an obligation to take permission from Archaeological Survey of India for necessary repairs, which is granted at the local level by a committee under the Chairmanship of District Collector, Jaisalmer. It was averred that the wooden doors and the plaster work both have been introduced for the first time in the buildi

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top