State regulations protecting national heritage sites mandate the preservation of their physical integrity, superseding personal or customary claims of usage. Furthermore, the suppression of material facts related to prior litigation precludes a petitioner from obtaining discretionary judicial relief.

JUDGMENT :

Anand Pathak

1. The present appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellant being crestfallen by the order dated 10-03-2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.27200 of 2024 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant (as petitioner in writ petition) got dismissed.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is Sajjada Nashin of Dargah Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus and as submitted he is legal heir of Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus. According to petitioner in the Dargah of Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus, various religious and cultural activities are performed for over last 400 years. However, subsequent to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), declaring the Dargah as a protected monument, such activities have been prohibited or curtailed. Those activities include Urs (Jalsa) and Namaz.

3. On 02-03-2024, petitioner submitted an application to the ASI requesting for permission for performing Urs at Dargah but vide letter dated 14-03-2024 (Annexure P/4) said permission was denied. It has been mentioned in the said letter that said premises is a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1958”) and as per the Rules it can only be opened from Sunrise to Sunset. As per Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1959”) no such permission can be granted. It is further mentioned that as per Section 30 of the Act of 1958 and rule 8 of Rules of 1959 any such act would be punishable with two years imprisonment with fine of Rs.1 lac. Therefore, writ petition was filed by the petitioner in September, 2024.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that action/inaction of respondents' authorities are illegal and arbitrary in nature. Petitioner and his forefather are performing the practice of Urs for over 400 years and therefore, this is a regular custom/religious practice which can be carried out in Dargah.

5. According to counsel for the petitioner question of violating rule 8 of Rule of 1959 does not arise in any manner and as per the provisions of the Act of 1958 petitioner is entitled to perform Urs and Namaz in the premises.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents/Union of India while filing the detailed reply vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground of concealment of facts. According to him, petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands and concealed/misrepresented the facts.

7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the respondents/Union of India that tomb of Muhammad Ghaus is a Centrally Protected Monument vide gazette notification dated 23-01-1962 (Annexure R/1) and is protected and maintained by ASI. While referring the conduct of petitioner, it has been mentioned that for ownership of the said monument/tomb of Muhammad Ghaus, Peerjada Syed Ali Hasan filed Case No.59-A/1986 (Civil Suit) in the Court of XVI Civil Judge Class -II, Gwalior which was dismissed vide judgment dat