ORDER :

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari calling for the records culminated in the 3rd respondent's impugned Demolition Notice in Ref. Na. Ka. No. A1/1/2020 dated 08.02.2020 and quash the same.

1. By this writ petition, a challenge has been made by the petitioner to the notice dated 8.2.2020 issued by the third respondent with a prayer to quash it.

2. The notice dated 8.2.2020 was issued after a judgment of this court in the public interest litigation in W.P. No. 3049 of 2019 (P. Senthil vs. The District Collector, Ariyalur District and Others) decided on 14.03.2019. A challenge to the notice dated 8.2.2020 has been made mainly on the ground that the proposed construction is situated 100 metres away from the prohibited area where the archaeological monument exists. The respondents stated the distance from the gate, ignoring the fact that it should have been from the structure of the monument and, accordingly, issued the notice to demolish the construction. In view of the above, a prayer is made to set aside the notice impugned in this writ petition.

3. A counter has been filed to the writ petition referring to the judgment of this court in the public interest litigation. During the pendency of a public interest litigation, an action was initiated by the official respondents to remove the unauthorised construction in question. This court while delivering the judgment in the public interest litigation, took note of the initiation of the action by the authorities and issued a direction to proceed further for an appropriate action against the fourth respondent therein for putting up unauthorised construction. The direction aforesaid was given after hearing the petitioner's husband. Therefore, such direction was binding on the petitioner, if the husband died during the interregnum period. That is the first part which is to be taken into consideration as per the argument of learned counsel for the respondents.

4. According to the respondents, the distance of the area where the construction was initially commenced, and now already constructed, ignoring the status quo order is at the distance of 79.4 metres from the boundary wall of the ancient monument. The construction is not permissible in an area up to 100 metres from the protected monument and, accordingly, the petitioner has raised an illegal construction therein. They have contested the argument regarding the measurement of the area from the physical existence of the monument instead of the outer boundary wall. According to the respondents, the measurement is to be taken from the outer boundary wall of the protected monument and, according to them, the measurements shown by them is from the outer boundary wall of the protected monument. It is found to be within 100 metres from the outer boundary wall and, therefore, notice of demolition of the construction was issued. The petitioner was directed to remove the construction on her own, or else it was to be removed by the official respondents.

5. An allegation has also been made on behalf of the respondents that after the grant of status quo order by this court, the petitioner continued the construction which was at the initial stage when the writ petition was filed. Photograph of the construction has been submitted for perusal of the court as part of the counter. In view of the above, a prayer is made to dismiss the writ petition.

6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

7. A challenge to the notice dated 8.2.2020 has been made mainly in reference to the distance of the land, where the construction has been raised, from the protected monument. According to the petitioner, the distance has to be measured from the protected monument and not from the outer boundary wall and if it is so measured, the construction put up by the petitioner would be beyond 100 metres from the protected monument.

8. The issue for our consideration is as to whether th