Honble KOKJE, J.–Heard Shri Vikram Purohit for the appellants and Shri Vineet Kumar Mathur, learned counsel for the Union of India.

(2). The case was fixed on stay petition but since the notice was issued for final disposal of the appeal, we are deciding it finally.

(3). By the impugned order the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition holding it to be involving disputed questions of fact, which could not be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having heard the counsel, we are of the opinion that no disputed questions of fact are involved in the case as the disputed site is admittedly situated within the walls of Jaisalmer Fort. The dispute is as to whether Jaisalmer Fort area is a protected area as defined by the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter called `1958 Act) which is purely a question of law.

(4). The petitioners/appellants complain that the respondents are trying to remove construction put up by them in an area which does not fall within the definition of `protected area under the 1958 Act. According to the appellants an area to be declared as `protected area has to be an archaeological site and remains declared

Click Here to Read the rest of this document