REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2430 OF 2006

Archaeological Survey of India … Appellant

versus

Narender Anand and others … Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2431 OF 2006

Narender Anand and another … Appellant

versus

Archaeological Survey of India and others … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

G. S. Singhvi, J.

1.These appeals are directed against the judgment of the

Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby the appeal filed

by Archaeological Survey of India (appellant in C.A. No. 2430 of

2006 and respondent No.1 in C.A. No. 2431 of 2006) was

allowed and the order of injunction passed by the learned Single

Judge in IA No. 2912 of 2002 in Suit No. 645 of 2002 allowing

Shri Narender Anand and M/s. Raval Apartments Pvt. Ltd.

(respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in C.A. No.2430 of 2006 and appellants

in C.A. No. 2431 of 2006) to raise construction up to the height

of 55 feet on plot No.14, Janpath Lane, New Delhi was set aside

and Writ Petition No.2635 of 2002 filed by Heritage and Cultural

Forum was disposed of with a direction to the Central

Government to review notification dated 16.6.1992 issued under

Rule 32 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and

Remains Rules, 1959 (for short, ‘the Rules’).

2.While Archaeological Survey of India has questioned the

direction given by the Division Bench of the High Court for review

of notification dated 16.6.1992, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have

challenged that portion of the impugned judgment by which the

Division Bench vacated the order of injunction passed by the

learned Single Judge.

2

3.Archaeological and historical pursuits in India started with

the efforts of Sir William Jones, who put together a group of

antiquarians to form the Asiatic Society on 15th January 1784 in

Calcutta. He was supported by many persons who carried out

survey of monuments in various parts of India. The

identification of Chandragupta Maurya with Sandrokottos of

Greek historians by Jones helped in fixing a chronological

horizon of Indian history. This was followed by the identification

of Pataliputra (Palibothra of classical writings) at the confluence

of the Ganga and Sone. The decipherment of Gupta and Kutila

script by Charles Wilkinson was a landmark in this regard.

Thereafter, many individuals made contribution in surveying

different monuments in India. In 1861, Alexander Cunningham

was appointed as the first Archaeological Surveyor. He surveyed

areas stretching from Gaya in the east to the Indus in the

northwest, and from Kalsi in the north to the Narmada in the

south, between 1861 and 1865. For this, he largely followed the

footsteps of the Chinese pilgrim Hieun Tsang. However, with the

abolition of the Archaeological Survey in 1866, this work came to

3

a grinding halt. In the meanwhile, an Act was passed in 1863

empowering the Government to prevent injury to, and preserve

the buildings remarkable for their antiquity and historical or

architectural value. In 1878, Treasure Trove Act was enacted

which enabled the Government to confiscate treasures and

antiques found during chance digging. After 26 years, the

Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 (for short, ‘the 1904

Act’) was enacted for the preservation of ancient monuments and

objects of archaeological, historical or artistic interest. Section

2(1) of that Act, which contains the definition of “ancient

monuments” and Section 3 under which the Central Government

was empowered to declare an ancient monument to be a

protected monument were as under:

“2. Definitions.— In this Act, unless there is anything

repugnant in the subject or context.—

(1) “ancient monument ” means any structure,

erection or monument, or any tumulus or place of

interment, or any cave, rock-sculpture, inscription or

monolith, which is of historical, archaeological or

artistic interest, or any remains thereof, and includes

—

(a) the site of an ancient monument;

4

(b) such portion of land adjoining the site of an ancient

monument as may be required for fencing or covering

in or otherwise preserving such monument; and

(c) the means of access to and convenient inspection of

an ancient monument:

****

3. Protected monuments .—(1) The Central

Government may, by notification in the Official

Gazette, declare an ancient monument to be a

protected monument within the meaning of this Act.

(2) A copy of every notification published under sub-

section (1) shall be fixed up in a conspicuous place on

or near the monument, together with an intimation

that any objections to the issue of the notification

received by Central Government within one month

from the date when it is so fixed up will be taken into

consideration.

(3) On the expiry of the said period of one month, the

Central Government, after considering the objections,

if any, shall confirm or withdraw the notification.

(4) A notification published under this section shall,

unless and until it is withdrawn, be conclusive

evidence of the fact that the monument to which it

relates is an ancient monument within the meaning of

this Act.”

4.The framers of the Constitution were very much conscious

of the need of protecting the monuments and places/objects of

artistic and historic importance. This is why Article 49 was

incorporated in the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV of

5

the Constitution) whereby an obligation has been imposed on the

State to protect every monument or place or object of artistic or

historic interest declared by or under law made by Parliament.

For the sake of reference Article 49 is reproduced below:

“49. Protection of monuments and places and

objects of national importance . – It shall be the

obligation of the State to protect every monument or

place or object of artistic or historic interest, declared

by or under law made by Parliament to be of national

importance, from spoilation, disfigurement,

destruction, removal, disposal or export, as the case

may be.”

5.In 1951, Parliament enacted the Ancient and Historical

Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration

of National Importance) Act, 1951, whereby certain monuments

etc. were declared to be of national importance. After 7 years,

Parliament enacted the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological

Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (for short, ‘the 1958 Act’) to provide

for the preservation of ancient and historical monuments and

archaeological sites and remains of national importance, for the

regulation of archaeological excavations and for the protection of

sculptures, carvings and other like objects. Similar legislations

have been enacted by various State legislatures with reference to

6

entry 12 List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The

definition of “ancient monument” contained in Section 2(a) and

Sections 3, 4, 38(1), (2)(a) and (b) and 39 of the 1958

Act, which are relevant for deciding the issues raised in these

appeals are reproduced below:

“2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless the context

otherwise requires,—

(a) “ancient monument” means any structure,

erection or monument, or any tumulus or place of

interment, or any cave, rock sculpture, inscription or

monolith, which is of historical, archaeological or

artistic interest and which has been in existence for

not less than 100 years, and includes—

(i) the remains of an ancient monument,

(ii) the site of an ancient monument,

(iii) such portion of land adjoining the site of an

ancient monument as may be required for

fencing or covering in or otherwise preserving

such monument, and

(iv) the means of access to, and convenient

inspection of an ancient monument;

****

3. Certain ancient monuments, etc., deemed to be

of national importance. – All ancient and historical

monuments and all archaeological sites and remains

which have been declared by the Ancient and

Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and

Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act,

1951 (71 of 1951), or by section 126 of the States

Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956), to be of

national importance shall be deemed to be ancient

7

and historical monuments or archaeological sites and

remains declared to be of national importance for the

purposes of this Act.

4. Power of Central Government to declare ancient

monument, etc., to be of national importance. - (1)

Where the Central Government is of opinion that any

ancient monument or archaeological site and remains

not included in section 3 is of national importance, it

may, by notification in the Official Gazette, give two

months’ notice of its intention to declare such ancient

monument or archaeological site and remains to be of

national importance; and a copy of every such

notification shall be affixed in a conspicuous place

near the monument or site and remains, as the case

may be.

(2) Any person interested in any such ancient

monument or archaeological site and remains may,

within two months after the issue of the notification,

objects to the declaration of the monument, or the

archaeological site and remains, to be of national

importance.

(3) On the expiry of the said period of two months, the

Central Government may, after considering the

objections, if any, received by it, declare by

notification in the Official Gazette, the ancient

monument or the archaeological site and remains, as

the case my be, to be of national importance.

(4) A notification published under sub-section (3)

shall, unless and until it is withdrawn, be conclusive

evidence of the fact that the ancient monument or

archaeological site and remains to which it relates is

of national importance for the purposes of this Act.

38. Power to make rules. –(1) The Central

Government may, by notification in the Official

8

Gazette and subject to the condition of previous

publication, make rule for carrying out the purposes

of this Act.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the

generality of the foregoing power, such rules may

provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:

—

(a) the prohibition or regulation by licensing or

otherwise of mining, quarrying, excavating, blasting

or any operation of a like nature near a protected

monument or the construction of buildings on land

adjoining such monument and the removal of

unauthorised buildings;

(b) the grant of licences and permissions to make

excavations for archaeological purposes in protected

areas, the authorities by whom, and the restrictions

and conditions subject to which, such licences may

be granted, the taking of securities from licensees and

the fees that may be charged for such licences.

39. Repeals and saving. – (1) The Ancient and

Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and

Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act,

1951 (71 of 1951), and section 126 of the States

Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956), are hereby

repealed.

(2) The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 (7

of 1904), shall cease to have effect in relation to

ancient and historical monuments and archaeological

sites and remains declared by or under this Act to be

of national importance, except as respects things

done or omitted to be done before the commencement

of this Act.”

9

6.In exercise of the power vested in it under Section 38 of the

1958 Act, the Central Government enacted the Rules, the

relevant provisions whereof are extracted below:

“31. Notice or intention to declare a prohibited

or regulated area.- (1) Before declaring an area

near or adjoining a protected monument to be a

prohibited area or a regulated area for purposes of

mining operation or construction or both, the

Central Government shall, by notification in the

Official Gazette, give one month’s notice of its

intention to do so, and a copy of such notification

shall be affixed in a conspicuous place near the

area.

(2)Every such notification shall specify the limits

of the area which is to be so declared and shall also

call for objection, if any, from interested persons.

32. Declaration of prohibited or regulated area. –

After the expiry of one month from the date of the

notification under rule 31 and after considering the

objections, if any, received within the said period,

the Central Government may declare, by notification

in the Official Gazette, the area specified in the

notification under rule 31, or any part of such area,

to be a prohibited area, or, as the case may be, a

regulated area for purposes of mining operation or

construction or both.

33. Effect of declaration of prohibited or

regulated area.- No person other than an

archaeological officer shall undertake any mining

operation or any construction, -

(a)in a prohibited, area, or

(b)in a regulated area except under and in

accordance with the terms and conditions of a

licence granted by the Director- General.”

10

7.Jantar Mantar, New Delhi is one of the five unique

observatories built between 1699 and 1743 by Majaraja Jai

Singh (II) of Jaipur, who was a great Mathematician and

Astronomer. The other observatories are at Jaipur, Ujjain,

Varanasi and Mathura. Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, like other

observatories has several instruments that can graph the path of

the astronomical universe. There is a colossal Samrat Yantra at

the periphery of Jantar Mantar. To the South of Samrat Yantra,

there is an amazing instrument called Jai Prakash, which has

two concave hemispherical structures used for determining the

position of the Sun and celestial bodies. The other important

yantras are Misra Yantra, Daksinovartti Bhitti Yantra, Karka

Rasivalaya, Niyat Cakra, Rama Yantra, Brhat Samrat and

Sasthamsa Yantra. Unfortunately, some of these yantras have

been rendered unworkable or have become non-functional. One

of the main reasons for this is the construction of multistoried

structures which have come up in the vicinity of Jantar Mantar

in the last 25 to 30 years.

11

8.In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the

1904 Act, the Central Government issued notification dated

4.10.1956, which was published in the Gazette of India dated

13.10.1956, declaring Jantar Mantar, New Delhi to be a

protected monument. That notification reads as under:

“MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

ARCHAEOLOGY

New Delhi, the 4th October 1956

S.R.O. 2306. - In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Ancient Monuments

Preservation Act, 1904 (7 of 1904), the Central

Government hereby declares the ancient monument

described in the Schedule annexed hereto to be a

protected monument within the meaning of the said

Act.

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Dist-

rict

LocalityName of

Monum

ent

Area Boundary:

East, South,

North, West

Whether

in

religious

use

Owner-

ship

Rem-

arks

Delhi New

Delhi

Jantar

Mantar

Protect-

ed area

5.39

South:

South

India Club,

9, Jantar

Mantar

Road

East: Low

Land with a

modern

temple &

well

West:

Jantar

Mantar

Road

No Maharaja

of Jaipur

12

North-East:

Partap

Singh

Building

North-West:

Parliament

Street

[No.F-3-76/50-C-1]

D. CHAKRAVARTI

Under Secretary”

9.With a view to correct an obvious mistake committed by

showing Maharaja of Jaipur as the owner of Jantar Mantar in

the Schedule of the aforesaid notification, the Central

Government issued notification dated 3.5.1957 under Section

3(1) of the 1904 Act, which reads as under:

“TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA

PART II SECTION III.

No. F.3-76/50-0.1

Government of India,

Ministry of Education.

New Delhi, dated the 3rd May, 1957.

NOTIFICATION

(ARCHAEOLOGY)

In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of

section 3 of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act,

1904 (7 of 1904) and in supersession of notification of

13

the Government of India Ministry of Education No.F.3-

76/50/0.1 dated the 4th October, 1956, the Central

Government hereby declares the ancient monument

described in the Schedule annexed hereto to be a

protected monument within the meaning of the said

Act.

(Sd/-

(Rameshwar Dass)

Under Secretary

The Publisher,

Gazette of India,

New Delhi.”

The Schedule annexed with that notification is reproduced below:

“Ct.Local

ity

Name of

Monume

nt

Area Boundary: East,

South, North,

West

Ownership

1 2 3 4 5 6

Delh

i

New

Delhi

Jantar

Mantar

Protecte

d area

5.39

South: South

India Club,

9, Jantar Mantar

Road

East: Low Land

with a modern

temple & well

West: Jantar

Mantar Road

North-East:

Partap Singh

Building

North-West:

Parliament Street

Government

of Rajasthan”

14

10.Although, notification dated 3.5.1957 was not published in

the Official Gazette, as was done in the case of notification dated

4.10.1956, the only difference in the two notifications was that in

the Schedule appended to the first notification, the ownership of

Jantar Mantar was shown to be that of “Maharaja of Jaipur” and

in the second notification, the owner of Jantar Mantar was

shown as the Government of Rajasthan. What needs to be

emphasized is that after merger of the erstwhile State of Jaipur

and formation of the State of Rajasthan, Maharaja of Jaipur did

not retain his earlier status and he no longer remained the owner

of Jantar Mantar because it was not his private property.

11.In exercise of the power vested in it under Rule 31 of the

Rules, the Central Government issued notification dated

15.5.1991, which was published in Gazette of India dated

25.5.1991, and gave notice of its intention to declare an area of

100 meters from the protected limits and further beyond it upto

200 meters near or adjoining protected monuments to be

prohibited and regulated areas respectively for the purposes of

mining operations and constructions. After considering the

15

objections/suggestions received from the public, the Central

Government issued notification dated 16.6.1992, which was duly

published in the Official Gazette. The final notification reads

thus:

“DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE

(Archaeological Survey of India)

New Delhi, the 16th June, 1992.

(ARCHAEOLOGY)

S.O. 1764-Whereas by the notification of the

Government of India in the Department of Culture,

Archaeological Survey of India No. S.O. 1447 dated the

15th May, 1991 published in Gazette of India, Part-II

Section 3 sub-section (ii) dated 25th May, 1991, the

Central Government gave one month's notice of its

intention to declare area upto 100 metres from the

protected limits, and further beyond it upto 200

meters near or adjoining protected monuments to be

prohibited and regulated areas respectively for

purposes of both mining operation and construction.

And whereas the said Gazette was made available

to the public on the 5th June, 1991.

And whereas objections to the making of such

declaration received from the person interested in the

said areas have been considered by the Central

Government.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers

conferred by Rule 32 of the Ancient Monument and

Archaeological sites and Remains Rules, 1959, the

Central Government hereby declares the said areas to

be prohibited and regulated areas. This shall be in

16

addition to and not in any way prejudice the similar

declarations already made in respect of monuments at

Fatehpur Sikri; Mahabalipuram; Golcunda Fort,

Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh); Thousands Pillared

Temple, Hanamkonda, Distt. Warangal (Andhra

Pradesh); Shershah' Tomb, Sasaram (Bihar); Rock

Edict of Ashoka, Kopbal, Distt. Raichur (Karnatka);

Gomateshwara Statue at Sravanbelgola, District

Hassan (Karnataka); Elephanta Caves, Gharapur,

District Kolba (Maharashtra).

(No.F.8/2/90-M-M.C.

M.C. Joshi, Director General”

12.Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who own plot No. 14, Janpath

Lane submitted an application to the New Delhi Municipal

Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) sometime in August

1986 for sanction of the building plan for the construction of

multistoried commercial building. The same was rejected vide

letter dated 15.9.1986 on the ground that the area was under

comprehensive development and the details of redevelopment

controls/drawings, if any, finalized by the Delhi Development

Authority (for short, ‘the DDA’) were not available with the

Corporation. After about 7 years, respondent Nos.1 and 2 again

submitted application dated 24.6.1993 for sanction of the

building plan. The DDA vide its letter dated 1.10.1993 suggested

17

to the Corporation that plot No.14, Janpath Lane form part of

redevelopment scheme and the building plan should be approved

as per the Development Control Norms. The building plan was

finally sanctioned by the Corporation sometime in September

2000 and was released on 5.3.2001. Thereafter, respondent Nos.

1 and 2 demolished the existing structure and started digging

foundation for the new building. On 5.5.2001, the Conservation

Assistant of Archaeological Survey of India lodged a complaint

about the excavation and construction being undertaken by

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in violation of the prohibition contained

in notification dated 16.6.1992. The Superintending

Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, vide his letter

dated 10.5.2001 informed the Corporation that the sanction

given by it was contrary to notification dated 16.6.1992.

Thereupon, the Corporation issued notice dated 23.5.2001 to

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and directed them to stop the

construction and obtain the requisite permission from the

Archaeological Survey of India.

18

13.Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 challenged the letter of the

Corporation in Suit No. 645 of 2002 and prayed that the

restriction imposed on the construction of building be declared

as nullity. They also filed I.A. No. 2912 of 2002 under Order 39

Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction. On 22.3.2002, the

learned Single Judge directed registration of the suit and passed

an ex parte injunction order whereby the Corporation was

restrained from giving effect to letter dated 23.5.2001 subject to

the condition that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall furnish an

undertaking that they will raise construction up to the height of

55 feet only. On notice, Archaeological Survey of India filed

I.A.No.4479 of 2002 for modification of order dated 22.3.2002.

The same was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with a

direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to raise construction

beyond the DPC level.

14.The injunction application was finally allowed by the

learned Single Judge vide order dated 30.10.2002 and order

dated 22.3.2002 was made absolute. The learned Single Judge

noted that despite several opportunities, counsel representing

19

Archaeological Survey of India failed to produce a copy of the

Official Gazette in which notification dated 3.5.1957 was

published and held that in the absence of such publication, the

notification cannot be treated as effective. The learned Single

Judge further held that subsequent notification dated 8.1.1958

in which reference was made to earlier notification dated

3.5.1957 was also ineffective and in the absence of a legally

binding notification having been issued under Section 3(1) of the

1904 Act, the prohibition contained in notification dated

16.6.1992 cannot be made applicable to the plot of respondent

Nos.1 and 2.

15.I.A.No.10985/2002 filed by Archaeological Survey of India

for review of the injunction order was disposed of by learned

single Judge on 27.11.2002 by taking cognizance of the

concession made by the counsel appearing on its behalf that

notification dated 3.5.1957 had not been published in the Official

Gazette.

20

16.Archaeological Survey of India challenged the order of

injunction in FAO (OS) No.414 of 2002 mainly on the ground that

while deciding the application for injunction, the learned Single

Judge had misinterpreted the notifications issued under Section

3(1) of the 1904 Act and Section 39 of the 1958 Act.

17.During the pendency of the appeal filed against the order of

the learned Single Judge, Heritage and Culture Forum, Delhi

filed Writ Petition No.2635 of 2002 by way of public interest

litigation and prayed for issue of a mandamus for stopping the

construction of multistoried building on the plot owned by

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by asserting that the same was contrary

to the provisions of the 1958 Act and the Rules framed

thereunder and the prohibition imposed on the construction of

buildings within 100 meters of the protected monument.

18.In their counter affidavit, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not only

questioned the locus standi of the Heritage and Culture Forum to

challenge the permission granted to them for the construction of

building, but also pleaded that the prohibition contained in

21

notification dated 16.6.1992 was not applicable to their plot. On

behalf of Archaeological Survey of India, the Superintending

Archaeologist filed counter affidavit and pleaded that the building

plan sanctioned by the Corporation which enabled respondent

Nos. 1 and 2 to construct the building was violative of the

prohibition contained in notification dated 16.6.1992.

19.At the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for respondent

Nos. 1 and 2 reiterated the plea taken before the learned Single

Judge that Jantar Mantar, New Delhi cannot be treated as a

protected monument because notification dated 3.5.1957 had

not been published in the Official Gazette and, as such, the

prohibition contained in notification dated 16.6.1992 was not

applicable to his clients. He then argued that there was no

justification to enforce the prohibition qua plot No. 14, Janpath

Lane because a number of other buildings including Phase-II of

the Corporation’s building had already been constructed around

Jantar Mantar in violation of the restriction of 100 meters.

22

20.The Division Bench of the High Court took cognizance of the

fact that the Corporation had constructed Phase-II building in

violation of the prohibition contained in notification dated

16.6.1992 and directed Archaeological Survey of India to explain

why such construction of that building was not stopped.

Thereupon, the Superintending Archaeologist filed affidavit dated

26.5.2003. In paragraph III(1) and (2) of his affidavit, the

deponent spelt out the details of the objections raised by

Archaeological Survey of India against the construction of Phase

II building of the Corporation and claimed that the officers of the

Corporation continued with the construction despite objections.

In paragraph IV of his affidavit, the deponent made the following

statement:

“IV) That it is evident from the above-stated

chronology of events that in so far as ASI is concerned,

it pursued the matter with NDMC and Government of

NCT of- Delhi vigorously with the hope that NDMC

would stop the construction. However, despite best

efforts of ASI, nothing was being done to ensure that

the construction activity at the site takes place in

accordance with the provisions of Law. It is only

on 26th August, 2003 that an application in

the prescribed form has been submitted by

NDMC, seeking the permission of Archaeological

Survey of India to sanction the construction in

the regulated area. It is respectfully submitted

23

that Archaeological Survey of India does not have any

machinery, either to demolish the construction or to

stop the construction and therefore it could do only

as much in the present case, since it involved

a local authority, and for the purposes of

execution of its orders ASI has to depend

upon the assurance of Local Government only.

It is significant to note that in the present case the

construction was carried cut by none other than the

municipal authority, and, as such, there was

nothing that Archaeological Survey of India could

do except to persuade the concerned authority

to dissuade from persisting with the same. Towards

the said directions, best efforts were made by the ASI,

but to no avail.”

21.In compliance of order dated 26.4.2002 passed by the

Division Bench of the High Court, the Corporation submitted a

status report containing the details of the applications made by

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and sanction of the building plan. The

status report also made a mention of letter dated 25.9.2001

written by the DDA to the Corporation that the

objections/suggestions made by Archaeological Survey of India

regarding setbacks and heights were considered while finalizing

the Redevelopment Scheme in 1989, which was approved by the

DDA on 24.5.1994 and by the Ministry of Urban Development in

October 1994.

24

22.In compliance of another order passed by the Division

Bench on 6.8.2003, the Corporation explained its position

regarding Phase II building by stating that approval for NDMC,

New Delhi City Centre was granted vide Resolution dated

12.2.1969 and the building was to be constructed in two phases.

That plan for Phase II was approved by the Delhi Urban Arts

Commission on 13.3.1992 and the building was constructed

without violating the 100 meters restriction.

23. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also filed an affidavit and

claimed that the proposed building is 218 feet away from the

outer boundary of Jantar Mantar and 101.46 meters from the

protected monument. According to respondent Nos.1 and 2, in

terms of the sanction plan they are entitled to construct building

up to the height of 75 feet but the learned Single Judge has

allowed construction only up to 55 feet.

24.The Division Bench of the High Court first considered the

implication of the concession made before the learned Single

25

Judge by the counsel appearing for Archaeological Survey of

India that notification dated 3.5.1957 had not been published in

the Official Gazette as per the requirement of Section 3(2) of the

1904 Act and observed that the so called concession was

inconsequential because copy of the Official Gazette had, in fact,

not been produced before the Court. The Division Bench then

considered the question whether Jantar Mantar is a protected

monument, referred to notifications dated 4.10.1956 and

3.5.1957 and observed that the second notification had been

issued only with a view to correct the mistake which had been

committed in mentioning the name of Maharaja of Jaipur in the

column of ‘ownership’ of the first notification. The Division Bench

opined that Jantar Mantar had already been declared as a

protected monument by notification dated 4.10.1956, which was

specifically saved by Section 39 (2) of the 1958 Act. The Division

Bench then referred to notification dated 16.6.1992 and held that

in view of the prohibition contained therein, respondent Nos. 1

and 2 were not entitled to raise construction on plot No.14,

Janpath Lane because the same was within 100 meters of the

26

protected monument. The observations made by the Division

Bench in this respect are extracted below:

“The Notification dated 4.10.1956 clearly refers to the

protected area as comprising 5.39 acres. It is not in

dispute that the entire area within the boundary wall

comprises of these from 5.39 acres. Thus, reading

the 1956 Notification itself makes it clear that what is

protected is not just the buildings/structures

comprised within, which collectively go by the name

Jantar Mantar, but the entire area of 5.39 acres.

Now, reading the Notification dated 16.6.1992, it is

apparent that what has been prohibited is mining and

construction activity within 100 meters “from the

protected limits” of the protected monuments.

Therefore, the measurement that has to be obtained

is not from the structures but from the boundary wall

or in other words from “the limits of the protected

area”. If that is so, then there is no dispute that the

proposed building at plot No.14, Janpath Lane falls

within 100 meters thereof.”

25. The Division Bench rejected the argument of respondent

Nos.1 and 2 that in view of the provisions contained in the Delhi

Development Authority Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the DDA Act’), which

is a special law enacted for planned development of Delhi, the

prohibition contained in notification dated 16.6.1992 issued

under Rule 32 of the Rules framed under Section 38 of the 1958

Act will not be applicable to their case. In the opinion of the

Division Bench, there is no conflict between the provisions of the

27

DDA Act and the 1958 Act because the two statutes operate in

different fields and even if there was some conflict, the 1958 Act

being a special law enacted for the preservation and protection of

ancient monuments would prevail over the DDA Act.

26.The Division Bench then noted that several buildings

including the Phase II building of the Corporation had come up

in violation of the prohibition contained in notification dated

16.6.1992 but did not delve deep into the issue because an

undertaking was given on behalf of the Corporation that the

basement of the building constructed in violation of the

prohibition shall not be used. Finally, the Division Bench

vacated the order of injunction passed by the learned Single

Judge but proceeded to direct the Central Government to review

notification dated 16.6.1992 by observing that a provision could

be made for relaxation of the prohibition on case to case basis

because the degree and type of protection depends upon

variables such as the nature of protected monument, its location,

the weather conditions, the topography, the soil etc. and there

has to be application of mind on these and other issues linked

28

with preservation of monuments and Archaeological Survey of

India cannot take shelter of the notification prohibiting

construction within 100 meters from the boundary of the

protected monument in each and every case for refusing

permission or license for construction.

27.Before proceeding further, we deem it proper to mention

that in compliance of the direction given by this Court on

29.9.2010, an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the

Corporation detailing the events leading to the construction of its

Phase II building. In the end, it has been stated that Director

General, Archaeological Survey of India has accorded ex-post

facto approval to the construction of that building. In support of

this assertion, copies of letter dated 11.2.2005 issued by the

Director General, Archaeological Survey of India to the

Chairperson of the Corporation conveying ex-post facto approval

and license dated 21.2.2005 issued by the Superintending

Archaeologist, Delhi Circle, have been placed on record.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also filed additional affidavit stating

therein that while they are not being allowed to construct

29

building, the Corporation has constructed multistoried building

within 70 meters of the protected monument and this is in clear

violation of the prohibition contained in notification dated

16.6.1992.

28.At this stage, it is apposite to mention that during the

pendency of these appeals the 1958 Act was amended by the

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains

(Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010 and Sections 20A and

20B were inserted with effect from 16.6.1992 and Sections 20C

to 20Q were inserted with effect from 29.3.2010. Since the

validity of the Amendment Act has not been questioned before

us, we do not propose to examine the same. However, we would

like to notice the provisions of Sections 20A, 20B, 20C and

20F(1) and (2), the interpretation of which will have far reaching

impact on the future of protected monuments of national and

international importance including Jantar Mantar, New Delhi.

These sections read as under:

“20A. Declaration of prohibited area and carrying

out public work or other works in prohibited area.-

Every area, beginning at the limit of the protected

30

area or the protected monument, as the case may be,

and extending to a distance of one hundred metres in

all directions shall be the prohibited area in respect of

such protected area or protected monument:

Provided that the Central Government may, on the

recommendation of the Authority, by notification in

the Official Gazette, specify an area more than one

hundred metres to be the prohibited area having

regard to the classification of any protected

monument or protected area, as the case may be,

under section 4A.

(2) Save as otherwise provided in section 20C, no

person, other than an archaeological officer, shall

carry out any construction in any prohibited area.

(3) In a case where the Central Government or the

Director-General, as the case may be, is satisfied that

—

(a) it is necessary or expedient for carrying out such

public work or any project essential to the public; or

(b) such other work or project, in its opinion, shall not

have any substantial adverse impact on the

preservation, safety, security of, or, access to, the

monument or its immediate surrounding, it or he

may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-

section (2), in exceptional cases and having regard to

the public interest, by order and for reasons to be

recorded in writing, permit, such public work or

project essential to the public or other constructions,

to be carried out in a prohibited area:

Provided that any area near any protected monument

or its adjoining area declared, during the period

beginning on or after the 16th day of June, 1992 but

ending before the date on which the Ancient

31

Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains

(Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2010, receives the

assent of the President, as a prohibited area in

respect of such protected monument, shall be deemed

to be the prohibited area declared in respect of that

protected monument in accordance with the

provisions of this Act and any permission or licence

granted by the Central Government or the Director-

General, as the case may be, for the construction

within the prohibited area on the basis of the

recommendation of the Expert Advisory Committee,

shall be deemed to have been validly granted in

accordance with the provisions of this Act, as if this

section had been in force at all material times:

Provided further that nothing contained in the first

proviso shall apply to any permission granted,

subsequent to the completion of construction or re-

construction of any building or structure in any

prohibited area in pursuance of the notification of the

Government of India in the Department of Culture

(Archaeological Survey of India) number S.O. 1764,

dated the 16th June, 1992 issued under rule 34 of

the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and

Remains Rules, 1959, or, without having obtained the

recommendations of the Committee constituted in

pursuance of the order of the Government of India

number 24/22/2006-M, dated the 20th July, 2006

(subsequently referred to as the Expert Advisory

Committee in orders dated the 27

th

August, 2008 and

the 5th May, 2009).

(4) No permission, referred to in sub-section (3),

including carrying out any public work or project

essential to the public or other constructions, shall be

granted in any prohibited area on and after the date

on which the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological

Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Bill,

2010 receives the assent of the President.

32

20B. Declaration of regulated area in respect of

every protected monument .-(1) Every area,

beginning at the limit of prohibited area in respect of

every ancient monument and archaeological sites and

remains, declared as of national importance under

sections 3 and 4 and extending to a distance of two

hundred metres in all directions shall be the

regulated area in respect of every ancient monument

and archaeological sites and remains:

Provided that the Central Government may, by

notification in the Official Gazette, specify an area

more than two hundred metres to be the regulated

area having regard to the classification of any

protected monument or protected area, as the case

may be, under section 4A:

Provided further that any area near any protected

monument or its adjoining area declared, during the

period beginning on or after the 16th day of June,

1992 but ending before the date on which the Ancient

Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains

(Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2010, receives the

assent of the President, as a regulated area in respect

of such protected monument, shall be deemed to be

the regulated area declared in respect of that

protected monument in accordance with the

provisions of this Act and any permission or licence

granted for construction in such regulated area shall,

be deemed to have been validly granted in accordance

with the provisions of this Act, as if this section had

been in force at all material times.

20C. Application for repair or renovation in

prohibited area, or construction or re-construction

or repair or renovation in regulated area. - (1) Any

person, who owns any building or structure, which

existed in a prohibited area before the 16th day of

33

June, 1992, or, which had been subsequently

constructed with the approval of the Director-General

and desires to carry out any repair or renovation of

such building or structure, may make an application

to the competent authority for carrying out such

repair or renovation, as the case may be.

(2) Any person, who owns or possesses any building

or structure or land in any regulated area, and

desires to carry out any construction or re-

construction or repair or renovation of such building

or structure on such land, as the case may be, may

make an application to the competent authority for

carrying out construction or re-construction or repair

or renovation, as the case may be.

20F. Constitution of National Monuments

Authority. –(1) The Central Government shall, by

notification in the Official Gazette, constitute an

Authority to be called as the National Monuments

Authority.

(2) The Authority shall consist of,—

(a) a Chairperson, on whole-time basis, to be

appointed by the President, having proven experience

and expertise in the fields of archaeology, country and

town planning, architecture, heritage and

conservation-architecture or law;

(b) such number of members not exceeding five

whole-time members and five part-time members to

be appointed, on the recommendation of the Selection

Committee referred to in section 20G, by the Central

Government, having proven experience and expertise

in the fields of archaeology, country and town

planning, architecture, heritage, conservation-

architecture or law.

34

(c) the Director-General as member, ex officio.”

29.What has been done by enacting Sections 20A and 20B is to

give legislative mandate to the concept of prohibited and

regulated areas respectively for the purposes of mining operation

and construction. Before the 2010 amendment, the Central

Government could issue notification under Rule 31 read with

Rule 32 and declare an area near or adjoining a protected

monument to be a prohibited area or a regulated area for the

purposes of mining operation or construction or both. With the

insertion of Section 20A it has been made clear that every area,

beginning at the limit of the protected area or the protected

monument, as the case may be, and extending to a distance of

one hundred meters in all directions shall be the prohibited area

in respect of such protected area or protected monument. Not

only this, by virtue of proviso to Section 20A(1) the Central

Government has been clothed with the power to extend the

prohibition beyond 100 meters by issuing a notification in the

Official Gazette keeping in view the classification of any protected

monument or protected area, as the case may be, under Section

35

4A. Of course, this power can be exercised only on the

recommendations of the Authority as defined in Section 2(da)

and constituted under Section 20F. Somewhat similar provision

has been made in Section 20B for the regulated area in respect of

every ancient monument and archaeological site and remains.

Proviso to that section empowers the Central Government to

issue notification in the Official Gazette and specify an area more

than two hundred meters to be the regulated area having regard

to the classification of any protected monument or protected

area, as the case may be, under Section 4A. In terms of Section

20A(2), it has been made clear that no person other than an

Archaeological Officer shall carry out any construction in any

prohibited area. This is subject to Section 20C, which can be

treated as an exception to Section 20A(2). That section lays

down that any person who owns any building or structure, which

existed in a prohibited area before 16.6.1992 or had been

subsequently constructed with the approval of the Director

General may carry out any repair or renovation of such building

or structure by making an application to the competent

authority. The term “renovation” appearing in Section 20C will

36

take its colour from the word “repair” appearing in that section.

This would mean that in the garb of renovation, the owner of a

building cannot demolish the existing structure and raise a new

one and the competent authority cannot grant permission for

such reconstruction. Section 20A(3) lays down that the Central

Government or the Director General can, in exceptional cases

and having regard to the public interest, pass a reasoned order

and permit a public work or any project essential to the public or

other construction in a prohibited area provided that such

construction does not have substantial adverse impact on the

preservation, safety, security of, or access to the protected

monuments or its immediate surrounding. The use of the

expression “such other work or project” in clause (b) of Section

20A(3), if interpreted in isolation, may give an impression that

the Central Government or the Director General is empowered to

allow any other work or project by any person in the prohibited

area but, in our view, the said expression has to be interpreted

keeping in view the mandate of Article 49 of the Constitution and

the objects sought to be achieved by enacting 1958 Act, i.e.

preservation of ancient and historical monuments, archaeological

37

sites and remains of national importance. This would necessarily

imply that ‘such other work or project’ must be in larger public

interest in contrast to private interest. In other words, in

exercise of power under Section 20A(3), the Central Government

or the Director General cannot pass an order by employing the

stock of words and phrases used in that section and permit any

construction by a private person de hors public interest. Any

other interpretation of this provision would destroy the very

object of the 1958 Act and the prohibition contained in

notification dated 16.6.1992 and sub-section (1) of Section 20A

would become redundant and we do not think that this would be

the correct interpretation of the amended provision. It also needs

to be emphasized that public interest must be the core factor to

be considered by the Central Government or the Director General

before allowing any construction and in no case the construction

should be allowed if the same adversely affects the ancient and

historical monuments or archaeological sites.

30.We may now revert to the impugned judgment in these

appeals. In our view, Archaeological Survey of India is fully

38

justified in making a grievance that the Division Bench of the

High Court was not justified in directing the Central Government

to review the prohibition contained in notification dated

16.6.1992. The High Court’s anxiety to maintain a balance

between the dire necessity of protecting historical monuments of

national and international importance and development of

infrastructures is understandable, but it is not possible to

approve the fiat issued to the Central Government to review the

prohibition contained in notification dated 16.6.1992. That

notification was issued by the Central Government for

implementing the policy enshrined in Article 49 of the

Constitution and the 1958 Act i.e. to preserve and protect

ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and

remains of national importance. Section 19 of the 1958 Act

contains a restriction against construction of any building within

the protected area or carrying out of any mining, quarring,

excavating, blasting or any other operation of similar nature in

such area. Rules 31 and 32 of the Rules empower the Central

Government to declare an area near or adjoining a protected

monument to be a prohibited area or a regulated area for the

39

purposes of mining operation or construction. The Central

Government must have issued notification dated 16.6.1992 after

consulting experts in the field and keeping in view the object of

the 1958 Act. Therefore, in the name of development and

accommodating the need for multistoried structures, the High

Court could not have issued a mandamus to the Central

Government to review/reconsider notification dated 16.6.1992

and that too by ignoring that after independence large number of

protected monuments have been facing the threat of extinction

and if effective steps are not taken to check the same, these

monuments may become part of history. One of such monument

is Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. Some of its instruments have

become unworkable/non functional. This is largely due to

construction of multistoried structures around Jantar Mantar.

Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court was

not justified in directing the Central Government to review or

reconsider notification dated 16.6.1992 and, to that extent, the

impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. We may add that

with the insertion of Sections 20A and 20B, the direction given

by the High Court for review of notification dated 16.6.1992 has

40

become infructuous and the Government is no longer required to

act upon the same.

31.The appeal of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is wholly meritless.

The High Court, in our view, has rightly held that even though

notification dated 3.5.1957 did not become effective because the

same was not published in the Official Gazette, the earlier

notification issued on 4.10.1956 remained effective and the same

was saved by Section 39(2) of the 1958 Act. We may add that

even though notification dated 3.5.1957 was issued in

supersession of notification dated 4.10.1956, the same remained

alive because of non compliance of Section 3(2) of the 1904 Act.

The High Court’s interpretation of the prohibition contained in

notification dated 16.6.1992 is correct and the distance of 100

meters has to be counted from the outer boundary wall of Jantar

Mantar which has protected area of 5.39 acres and not the

physical structures of the observatory. The High Court has given

detailed reasons for rejecting the plea of respondent Nos.1 and 2

that the provisions of the DDA Act would prevail over those

contained in the 1958 Act and we entirely agree with it.

41

32.We may have dealt with the additional affidavits of the

parties in greater detail and examined whether Archaeological

Survey of India was justified in not taking action against

construction of large number of buildings in violation of the

prohibition contained in notification dated 16.6.1992, but do not

consider it proper to do so because the owners of these buildings

are not parties to these appeals.

33.In the result, Civil Appeal No.2430 of 2006 is allowed and

the direction given by the Division Bench of the High Court for

review of notification dated 16.6.1992 is set aside. However, it is

made clear that in future the Central Government or the Director

General shall not take action or pass any order under Section

20A(3) and 20C except in accordance with the observations made

in this judgment. Civil Appeal No.2431 of 2006 is dismissed. The

parties are left to bear their own costs.

….…………………………….J.

(G.S. SINGHVI)

…………………….………….J.

New Delhi; (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

January 16, 2012.

42

43