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.

1. In questioning the justifiability of the notice dated 11.02.

2021 issued by the respondent no. 3, the present writ- petition has been preferred. Additionally, the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of that notice. Furthermore, the petitioners pray for an appropriate order and/or direction and/or writ, particularly, in the nature of prohibition, restraining the respondents from taking any steps for demolition of the petitioners’ building, which according to the petitioners, was constructed based on the building plan sanctioned by the competent authority.

2. The petitioner no. 1, being a developer, entered into an agreement with the owner of the land in question and in terms of the agreement, developed the land and constructed a building. Subsequently, the Archaeological Survey of India issued a notice to the petitioners alleging that the area falls within the regulatory area under the Ancient Monuments & Archaeological Sites & Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1958’). The said notice claimed that the petitioners should have obtained a prior permission from the Archaeological Survey of India before undertaking the construction work.

3. The petitioners assailed the said notice by preferring a writ-petition being WP 24146 (W) of 2019. Record reveals that a Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 02.03.2020 disposed of the said writ-petition along with an application filed in connection therewith, whereby the notice under challenge in that writ-petition was set aside with liberty granted to the Archaeological Survey of India to issue a fresh notice to the petitioners under the Act of 1958, granting the petitioners and such other interested persons, if any, an opportunity to show cause.

4. Mr. Kar, learned Advocate representing the petitioners submits that in the second round of litigation, the petitioners have challenged the second show-cause notice. He informs the Court that upon receipt of such show-cause notice from the Archaeological Survey of India, the petitioners file their response. However, despite receiving such response from the petitioners, no step has been taken and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. According to Mr. Kar, such action is a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice.

5. Inviting my attention to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Archaeological Survey of India in WP 24146 (W) of 2019, along with the notice dated 11.02.2021, Mr. Kar submits that the Archaeological Survey of India has taken contradictory positions. In the affidavit-in- opposition, it is stated that the petitioners’ building is located within 180 metres of the centrally protected monument, namely the “Warren Hastings House.” However, in the notice, it is mentioned that the petitioners’ building is situated at a distance of 189.52 metres from the said protected monument. Accordingly, Mr. Kar argues that the Archaeological Survey of India is uncertain as to whether the petitioners’ building falls within the regulatory area. He further draws my attention to a schedule appended to the Notification dated 23.11.2004 and contends that the schedule identifies only four plots of land as falling within the regulatory area under the Act of 1958.

6. Mr. Singhania, learned Advocate representing the Union of India, on the other hand, submits that irrespective of the fact whether the petitioners’ property falls within 180 metres or 189 metres, the fact remains that the property falls within 200 metres of the protected monument.