Restricted Excavation Limits Burial Rights in Protected Monuments under AMASR Act: Gujarat High Court - 2026-02-11

Tomb Dispute Escalates to High Court: Burial Rights Clash with Archaeological Protection

In a recent ruling, the High Court of Gujarat has reaffirmed the strict limitations on activities within protected historical sites. Justice J. C. Doshi, presiding over the Second Appeal, dismissed a challenge regarding burial rights at the Bada Hajira —the tomb of Qutbuddin Muhammad Khan in Vadodara—asserting that fundamental archaeological protection laws override unsubstantiated claims of customary religious access.

The Conflict: Customary Claims vs. Protected Monuments

The appellant, Pirzada Saiyed Bahauddin B. Kadri, claiming to be a "Dharma Guru" at the Khanka-ae-Qadariya , argued that he possessed a hereditary customary right to bury family members within the perimeter of the Bada Hajira . The dispute began when the Collector of Vadodara issued a notice in 1986, citing the tomb’s status as a ‘protected monument’ and prohibiting further burials or excavations.

While the trial court initially favored the appellant, the Joint District Judge overturned this decision on appeal, criticizing the lack of evidentiary support. The matter reached the High Court of Gujarat, where the central issue revolved around whether the appellate court could rely on documents that had not been formally "exhibited" during the original trial.

Arguments Presented

The appellant vehemently contested the appellate court’s move to rely on state-sourced documents, arguing that these were inadmissible as evidence. Furthermore, he invoked Section 5(6) and Section 16 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act, 1958 , claiming that these provisions protect his right to perform religious observances.

Conversely, the State of Gujarat, represented by the AGP, argued that the site—notified by the former Gaikwad of Baroda State—has been under federal protection as a monument of national importance for decades. They highlighted that the appellant’s own pleadings relied on documents that unequivocally catalog the land as under government administration, and noted that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) had explicitly denied the burial requests during the pendency of the suit.

Legal Analysis: The Priority of the 1958 Act

Justice J. C. Doshi’s analysis focused on the absolute nature of the AMASR Act, 1958 . The Court noted that the appellant, despite his expansive claims, failed to establish his status as the rightful administrator of the tomb or prove any recognized custom for burial.

The Court scrutinized the legislative framework, clarifying that while religious observance is shielded, physical alteration of the soil is strictly controlled. By failing to join the Archaeological Survey of India as a necessary party, the appellant’s case was fundamentally flawed from its initiation.

Key Observations

The judgment delivered sharp critiques on the lack of factual basis in the plaintiff's claims:

• "Plaintiff intends to dig the surface of the soil for more than one foot for the burial and for making a Mazar thereof. The right, even if exists, is clearly barred under Section 19 of the ‘Act of 1958’."
• "Plaintiff's suit is rather like ignoramus story."
• "The learned appellate Court found the various documents are essential and requisite for pronouncement of the judgment."
• "There is no illegality, much less substantial illegality, committed by the learned appellate Court in reversing the decree passed by the learned trial Court."

Court’s Decision: Implications for Historical Sites

The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that the questions of law raised by the appellant were not "substantial." By ruling that digging in protected areas is prohibited for burials involving significant soil movement, the Court has drawn a red line for heritage management.

This decision serves as a significant precedent, reinforcing the primacy of the AMASR Act over personal or customary claims. It underscores that for any historical site managed by the state, the preservation of the monument takes legal precedence over the proprietary or customary ambitions of individuals who cannot substantiate their legal standing.