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

1980 Supreme(All) 466

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. N. Shukla and N. D. Ojha, JJ.
ASHOK PRAPAN SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 7118 Of 1973
Decided On : 11/14/1980

Advocates Appeared:
BHARATJI AGARWAL

Section 18 of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, is a restrictive provision intended to impose a requirement for written permission from the Collector before moving or removing ancient monuments or objects of archaeological, historical, or artistic interest. It does not authorize persons other than the owner to remove such objects from the owner's possession.

Headnote:

ANCIENT MONUMENTS PRESERVATION ACT, 1904 - SECTION 18 - CONTROL OF MOVING SCULPTURES, CARVINGS OR LIKE OBJECTS - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - OWNER'S RIGHT TO DEAL WITH ANCIENT MONUMENTS - CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - POWER OF DISTRICT MAGISTRATE TO AUTHORIZE REMOVAL OF OBJECTS - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, claiming to be the Mahant of the Bharat Ji Maharaj temple in Rishikesh and the absolute owner of two statues of Yaksh and Yakshani placed in the temple campus, challenged an order issued by the District Magistrate, Dehradun, permitting the Curator of the Ancient Museum, Mathura, to remove the statues for display in the museum. The order was purportedly issued under Section 18 of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the impugned order was illegal and without jurisdiction. It found that no action had been taken under Sections 3, 5, and other relevant provisions of the Act to deprive the petitioner of the ownership of the statues. The court interpreted Section 18 as a restrictive provision intended to impose a requirement for written permission from the Collector before moving or removing ancient monuments or objects of archaeological, historical, or artistic interest. It clarified that Section 18 was not intended to authorize persons other than the owner to remove such objects from the owner's possession.

Issues: 1. Whether the District Magistrate had the jurisdiction to authorize the removal of the statues from the temple campus under Section 18 of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904. 2. Whether Section 18 could be interpreted as an enabling provision authorizing persons other than the owner to remove ancient monuments or objects of archaeological, historical, or artistic interest.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, particularly Sections 3, 5, 10, and 18, to conclude that the District Magistrate lacked the authority to issue the impugned order. It emphasized that the Act envisaged specific procedures and conditions for dealing with ancient monuments, including obtaining the owner's consent or acquiring the property through legal means. The court interpreted Section 18 as a restrictive provision aimed at preserving ancient monuments and objects of archaeological, historical, or artistic interest by requiring written permission from the Collector before moving or removing them. It held that Section 18 did not authorize persons other than the owner to remove such objects from the owner's possession.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and issued a mandamus prohibiting the Curator of the Ancient Museum, Mathura, from removing the statues from the temple campus.

M. N. SHUKLA, J.


( 1 ) IN Rishikesh (Dehradun) there is a celebrated temple known as the temple of Bharat Ji maharaj. By virtue of a series of Sanads which run into antiquity and into which it is not necessary to enter for the purpose of this case, the petitioner claims to be the Mahant thereof and absolute owner of two statues of Yaksh and Yakshani placed under a banyan tree (Bat Briksh) in the campus of the temple. These statues are alleged to be of great historical importance as well as religious sanctity. However, the District Magistrate, Dehradun addressed a letter dated 19-10-1973 to the Curator, Ancient Museum, Mathura a copy whereof was served on the petitioner (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) wherein it was mentioned that the District Magistrate permitted the Curator to remove the aforesaid two statues of Yaksh and Yakshani for the purpose of placing them for display in the museum of Mathura. The aforesaid letter purported to have been issued in the exercise of powers conferred under notification No. l718/iv-2 (2)-65, dated 22-5-1968, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It is the letter dated 19-10-1973 which has been impugned in this writ petition.

( 2 ) IN a nutshell the question which falls for consideration is as to whether such order directing the removal of the statues in question from the Bharat Ji temple to the museum at Mathura could be legally passed. The right to deal with ancient monuments is governed by the Ancient monuments Preservation Act, 1904 {act VII of 1904) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The act envisages a number of modes by taking resort to which the Government can deal with ancient monuments. The condition precedent, however, to embarking on any such action is a declaration under Section 3 of the Act. By virute of such declaration an ancient monument can be treated as a protected monument within the meaning of the Act. Under this section power has been conferred on the Collector to propose with the previous sanction of the Central Government to the owner of a protected monument to enter into an agreement with the Central Government for the preservation of any such protected monument which is in existence. Such agreement would empower the Government to perform a number of actions which are enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act. Besides, Section 10 of the Act empowers the Central government, if it apprehends that a protected monument is in danger of being destroyed, injured or allowed to fall into decay, to direct the State Government to acquire it under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as if the preservation of a protected monument were a public purpose within the meaning of that Act.

( 3 ) IT has been categorically averred in the writ petition that no action under any of the provisions mentioned above was taken in the instant case to deprive the petitioner of the ownership of the two statues. We may mention that no counter-affidavit was filed in the case. On the other hand, sri M. C, Gupta, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State made a statement that he had instructions not to oppose this writ petition. Thus, the allegations made by the petitioner remain uncontroverted and we proceed on the basis that the petitioner is the owner of the statues which are sought to be removed in pursuance of the notification purported to have been passed under section 18 of the Act.

( 4 ) SECTION 18 of the Act confers power on the Central Government to control the moving of sculptures, carvings or like objects. It reads:-

"18. Power to Central Government to control moving of sculptures, carvings or like objects:- (1) If the Central Government considers that any sculptures, carvings, images, bas-reliefs, inscriptions or other like objects ought not to be moved from the place where they are without the sanction of the Central Government, the Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette, direct that any such object or








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
whatsapp-icon Back to top