Construction in regulated areas must consider the impact on protected monuments; local authorities must inform applicants about the necessity of obtaining NOCs before permits are issued.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18^th day of July, 2025 Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Exts.P6 and P8.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

Petitioners are in possession of 2.03 ares of property in Re.Sy. No.36/6-2-12 of Thiruvallam Village in Thiruvananthapuram District. Petitioners submitted application before the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation for building permit which was granted as per Ext.P1. On the strength of Ext.P1 the residential house was constructed strictly in compliance with the conditions in Ext.P1. While so, petitioners were issued with Ext.P2 notice from the 5^th respondent intimating that the residential building is situated in a regulated area of centrally protected monument, Shri.Parasurama Temple at Thiruvallam, and the petitioners have to remove the unauthorised building/construction. Thereupon the 7^th respondent issued Ext.P3 directing the petitioners to remove the construction undertaken by them on the basis of Ext.P1 permit issued by the local authority. 3. Thereafter the 6^th respondent competent authority as per the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act , 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1958’) conducted an inspection of the site as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules, and submitted a proposal and recommendation to the 3^rd respondent which is the “authority” as per the Act, 1958. The competent authority while issuing Ext.P4 recommendation to the authority has taken note of the fact that the site of construction is 240 metres away from the protected monument and comes within the regulated area of the monument, and that there are two storeyed buildings around the monument and two storeyed buildings around the proposed site, and the proposed construction is a double storeyed building having only a plinth area of 157.70 metre square, and that it will not affect the safety, beauty, accessibility or visibility of the monument in any way. It is also reported that the applicant has almost completed the construction without an NOC from the competent authority, and that the petitioners have constructed the building on the strength of the building permit issued by the Corporation authorities and was not aware of getting NOC from the competent authority, and that the Corporation authorities are now denying to issue building number and approval for the construction. Therefore, the competent authority requested the 3^rd respondent which is the authority under the Act to ratify the petitioners’ action done due to lack of awareness of the Act, 1958.

4. The authority, respondent No.3 by Ext.P6 communication intimated the competent authority the 6^th respondent herein that at the time of processing the NOC application it was observed that the applicant has almost completed the construction without any prior approval, and therefore directed the competent authority to issue show cause notice to the applicant and obtained a reply of the same and to refer back to the 3^rd respondent after a decision is taken by the Archeological Survey of India on the show cause notice issued. Later by Ext.P7 the show cause notice issued to the petitioners, its reply and the letter from the Archeological Survey of India was forwarded to the 3^rd respondent authority. The authority by Ext.P8 intimated the competent authority that, in the meeting of the NMA held on 21.06.2017 it was decided to reject the proposal due to the fact that the applicants have almost completed the construction of the building without obtaining NOC as per the provisions of the Act, 1958. The competent authority again represented the 3^rd respon