Back
MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, P. D. AUDIKESAVALU
L. Rani – Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Ariyalur – Respondent
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 ju
Actions would be taken to verify that the existing structure is in accordance with the existing Development Permission and only thereafter, Building Usage Permission would be granted.
The Archaeological Survey of India must adhere to natural justice principles and provide an opportunity for hearing before taking enforcement actions against properties in regulatory zones.
The court affirmed the priority of public interest in preserving historical monuments over private construction rights, ruling unauthorized constructions after necessary prohibitions as invalid.
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 19....
The court ruled that ownership claims over land must be substantiated with documentary evidence, and material questions of fact should be resolved in civil suits rather than writ petitions.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
