Back
Directs ASI to Verify Near Gulbarga Fort's 100-Metre Zone
The has directed the to verify whether any exist within the 100-metre surrounding the historic Gulbarga Fort, even as the state government continues efforts to rehabilitate families living illegally inside the monument. The direction came during the hearing of a filed in , which seeks the removal of all within and around the fort, a site of national importance.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda heard submissions from both the petitioner and the state government on Tuesday, . The court expressed concern over the apparent lack of clarity regarding outside the fort but still within the .
Background of the PIL
The PIL was filed by Sharan Desai, an architect and urban planner, who urged the court to enforce an order dated , issued by the Superintending Archaeologist of the ASI. That order called for the removal of from the area surrounding the Gulbarga Fort. The fort and the Great Mosque situated within its precincts were declared ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites of national importance by a notification on .
The legal framework governing the matter is the . expressly prohibits the construction of any building within a without the permission of the . In its order, the High Court had specifically referred to this provision and directed the authorities to ascertain whether buildings had been constructed in violation of and to take necessary action.
A subsequent survey identified 282 structures inside the that had been erected in violation of the law. The state government then undertook to provide alternative accommodation to those families.
Current Developments: Rehabilitation Progress and New Concerns
During the latest hearing, the state government informed the court that rehabilitation of the inhabitants living inside the fort was progressing. The Government Advocate submitted that drainage work at the rehabilitation site would be completed shortly, after which sites would be allotted to the identified families. A report regarding the rehabilitation was ready and would be placed before the court.
However, the petitioner pointed out a significant gap. While action was being taken in respect of inside the fort, continued to remain outside the fort within the 100-metre zone. According to the petitioner, there were 167 outside the fort, in addition to the 282 families identified for rehabilitation from within the fort area. This raised the question of whether the protected buffer zone around the monument was being adequately safeguarded.
The court then asked whether any report existed on record concerning outside the fort which also formed part of the . The state government indicated that this would have to be verified.
Court's Direction and ASI's Role
In response, the court directed Additional Solicitor General , appearing for the ASI, to obtain instructions on whether any exist outside the fort within the 100-metre radius. The Additional Solicitor General submitted that if were found in the area, directions could be issued to the local authorities for their , as removal of such was to be carried out by the local authorities and not by the ASI.
This clarification highlights the division of responsibilities under the Ancient Monuments Act: while the ASI is the custodian of the monument and the , the actual enforcement and actions often fall to local municipal and revenue authorities. The court’s directive effectively tasks the ASI with a verification role, after which the state machinery must act.
The matter has been listed after two weeks for from all concerned parties.
Earlier Orders and Timelines
The High Court has been monitoring this case since 2019. In , the court took on record a memo filed by the state government stating that arrangements were being made to provide alternative accommodation to the 282 families. However, progress has been slow. The Deputy Commissioner of Kalaburagi, in an affidavit sworn on , stated that approximately 12 to 18 months would be required to complete the rehabilitation activities. This timeline suggests that the issue of , both inside and outside the fort, will remain a live concern for the foreseeable future.
Legal Analysis and Implications
The case underscores the perennial challenge of protecting heritage sites from encroachment, particularly in urban areas where land is scarce. The 100-metre protected zone is a critical buffer intended to preserve the monument’s setting and structural integrity. within this zone can cause irreparable damage, both to the monument itself and to the archaeological remains that may lie beneath.
From a legal perspective, the case is a classic example of how public interest litigation can be used to enforce statutory protections that might otherwise remain dormant. The court’s insistence on verification and reporting creates accountability and ensures that the ASI and state authorities cannot simply ignore violations.
For legal practitioners, the case highlights the interplay between the ASI’s regulatory role and the local authorities’ executive functions. It also illustrates the court’s willingness to grant — first addressing internal , then expanding scrutiny to the outer buffer zone.
Impact on Legal Practice and Heritage Protection
This judgment is likely to influence how similar PILs are handled in other jurisdictions. Courts may be more inclined to demand periodic and to require independent verification of . The distinction between inside the monument and those within the protected periphery may become a standard point of inquiry.
Moreover, the case reinforces the principle that the lies on the authorities to demonstrate compliance with the law. When a petitioner raises credible allegations of illegal occupation, the court will not hesitate to direct the concerned agencies to conduct a survey and report back.
Conclusion
The ’s latest direction marks a significant step in the long-running effort to protect the Gulbarga Fort from unauthorized occupation. By asking the ASI to verify in the 100-metre zone, the court has expanded the scope of the PIL beyond the fort’s inner walls. With the next hearing scheduled in two weeks, all eyes will be on the that the ASI and the state government are expected to file. The outcome will have lasting implications for heritage conservation and the rights of those living in protected areas.
