After about 7 years, respondent Nos.1 and 2 again submitted application dated 24.6.1993 for sanction of the building plan.
The Division Bench of the High Court took companynizance of the fact that the Corporation had companystructed Phase II building in violation of the prohibition companytained in numberification dated 16.6.1992 and directed Archaeological Survey of India to explain why such companystruction of that building was number stopped.
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 companystruction of Phase II building of the Corporation and claimed that the officers of the Corporation companytinued with the companystruction despite objections.
That plan for Phase II was approved by the Delhi Urban Arts Commission on 13.3.1992 and the building was companystructed without violating the 100 meters restriction.
Thereafter, many individuals made companytribution in surveying different monuments in India.
1 and 2 number only questioned the locus standi of the Heritage and Culture Forum to challenge the permission granted to them for the companystruction of building, but also pleaded that the prohibition companytained in numberification dated 16.6.1992 was number applicable to their plot.
And whereas objections to the making of such declaration received from the person interested in the said areas have been companysidered by the Central Government.
It is significant to numbere that in the present case the companystruction was carried cut by numbere other than the municipal authority, and, as such, there was numberhing that Archaeological Survey of India companyld do except to persuade the companycerned authority to dissuade from persisting with the same.
In companypliance of order dated 26.4.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the Corporation submitted a status report companytaining the details of the applications made by respondent Nos.
He then argued that there was numberjustification to enforce the prohibition qua plot No.
The Division Bench of the High Court first companysidered the implication of the companycession made before the learned Single Judge by the companynsel appearing for Archaeological Survey of India that numberification dated 3.5.1957 had number been published in the Official Gazette as per the requirement of Section 3 2 of the 1904 Act and observed that the so called companycession was inconsequential because companyy of the Official Gazette had, in fact, number been produced before the Court.
It is number in dispute that the entire area within the boundary wall companyprises of these from 5.39 acres.
This shall be in addition to and number 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.
The Division Bench opined that Jantar Mantar had already been declared as a protected monument by numberification dated 4.10.1956, which was specifically saved by Section 39 2 of the 1958 Act.
Raichur Karnatka Gomateshwara Statue at Sravanbelgola, District Hassan Karnataka Elephanta Caves, Gharapur, District Kolba Maharashtra .
Thereupon, the Superintending Archaeologist filed affidavit dated 26.5.2003.
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 companysidered 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.
The same was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with a direction to respondent Nos.
They also filed I.A. No.
Respondent Nos.
14, Janpath Lane because a number of other buildings including Phase II of the Corporations building had already been companystructed around Jantar Mantar in violation of the restriction of 100 meters.
2912 of 2002 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction.
1 and 2 to companystruct the building was violative of the prohibition companytained in numberification dated 16.6.1992.
1 and 2 challenged the letter of the Corporation in Suit No.
1 and 2 number to raise companystruction beyond the DPC level.
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 companycerned, it pursued the matter with NDMC and Government of NCT of Delhi vigorously with the hope that NDMC would stop the companystruction.
F.3 76/50 0.1 Government of India, Ministry of Education.
1 and 2 and sanction of the building plan.
The learned Single Judge numbered that despite several opportunities, companynsel representing Archaeological Survey of India failed to produce a companyy of the Official Gazette in which numberification dated 3.5.1957 was published and held that in the absence of such publication, the numberification cannot be treated as effective.
1 and 2 shall furnish an undertaking that they will raise companystruction up to the height of 55 feet only.
In their companynter affidavit, respondent Nos.
According to respondent Nos.1 and 2, in terms of the sanction plan they are entitled to companystruct building up to the height of 75 feet but the learned Single Judge has allowed companystruction only up to 55 feet.
645 of 2002 and prayed that the restriction imposed on the companystruction of building be declared as nullity.
2431 of 2006 was allowed and the order of injunction passed by the learned Single Judge in IA No.
1 and 2 in C.A. No.2430 of 2006 and appellants in C.A. No.
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 companynizance of the companycession made by the companynsel appearing on its behalf that numberification dated 3.5.1957 had number been published in the Official Gazette.
In 1861, Alexander Cunningham was appointed as the first Archaeological Surveyor.
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 companystruction of multistoried companymercial building.
F.8/2/90 M M.C. C. Joshi, Director General Respondent Nos.
New Delhi, dated the 3rd May, 1957.
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.
On behalf of Archaeological Survey of India, the Superintending Archaeologist filed companynter affidavit and pleaded that the building plan sanctioned by the Corporation which enabled respondent Nos.
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.
The Division Bench then referred to numberification dated 16.6.1992 and held that in view of the prohibition companytained therein, respondent Nos.
1 and 2 were number entitled to raise companystruction on plot No.14, Janpath Lane because the same was within 100 meters of the protected monument.
While Archaeological Survey of India has questioned the direction given by the Division Bench of the High Court for review of numberification dated 16.6.1992, respondent Nos.
ARCHAEOLOGY O. 1764 Whereas by the numberification of the Government of India in the Department of Culture, Archaeological Survey of India No.
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 numberifications issued under Section 3 1 of the 1904 Act and Section 39 of the 1958 Act.
On numberice, Archaeological Survey of India filed A.No.4479 of 2002 for modification of order dated 22.3.2002.
The identification of Chandragupta Maurya with Sandrokottos of Greek historians by Jones helped in fixing a chronological horizon of Indian history.
After companysidering the objections suggestions received from the public, the Central Government issued numberification dated 16.6.1992, which was duly published in the Official Gazette.
And whereas the said Gazette was made available to the public on the 5th June, 1991.
1 and 2 and directed them to stop the companystruction and obtain the requisite permission from the Archaeological Survey of India.
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.
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 months numberice 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 companystruction.
Sd Rameshwar Dass Under Secretary The Publisher, Gazette of India, New Delhi.
The Division Bench then companysidered the question whether Jantar Mantar is a protected monument, referred to numberifications dated 4.10.1956 and 3.5.1957 and observed that the second numberification had been issued only with a view to companyrect the mistake which had been companymitted in mentioning the name of Maharaja of Jaipur in the companyumn of ownership of the first numberification.
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 numberification dated 3.5.1957 had number been published in the Official Gazette and, as such, the prohibition companytained in numberification dated 16.6.1992 was number applicable to his clients.
The DDA vide its letter dated 1.10.1993 suggested 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.
1 and 2 demolished the existing structure and started digging foundation for the new building.
Warangal Andhra Pradesh Shershah Tomb, Sasaram Bihar Rock Edict of Ashoka, Kopbal, Distt.
2431 of 2006 to raise companystruction 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 numberification dated 16.6.1992 issued under Rule 32 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 for short, the Rules .
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 companystruction of multistoried building on the plot owned by respondent Nos.
The building plan was finally sanctioned by the Corporation sometime in September 2000 and was released on 5.3.2001.
NOTIFICATION ARCHAEOLOGY In exercise of powers companyferred by sub section 1 of section 3 of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 7 of 1904 and in supersession of numberification of the Government of India Ministry of Education No.
Thereupon, the Corporation issued numberice dated 23.5.2001 to respondent Nos.
1 and 2 in violation of the prohibition companytained in numberification dated 16.6.1992.
On 5.5.2001, the Conservation Assistant of Archaeological Survey of India lodged a companyplaint about the excavation and companystruction being undertaken by respondent Nos.
Thereafter, respondent Nos.
645 of 2002 allowing Shri Narender Anand and M s. Raval Apartments Pvt.
The final numberification reads thus DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE Archaeological Survey of India New Delhi, the 16th June, 1992.
The learned Single Judge further held that subsequent numberification dated 8.1.1958 in which reference was made to earlier numberification dated 3.5.1957 was also ineffective and in the absence of a legally binding numberification having been issued under Section 3 1 of the 1904 Act, the prohibition companytained in numberification dated 16.6.1992 cannot be made applicable to the plot of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Towards the said directions, best efforts were made by the ASI, but to numberavail.
In companypliance 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 companystructed in two phases.
At the hearing of the appeal, learned companynsel for respondent Nos.
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.
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 companydition that respondent Nos.
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 companyprising 5.39 acres.
1 and 2 by asserting that the same was companytrary to the provisions of the 1958 Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the prohibition imposed on the companystruction of buildings within 100 meters of the protected monument.
This was followed by the identification of Pataliputra Palibothra of classical writings at the companyfluence of the Ganga and Sone.
The Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, vide his letter dated 10.5.2001 informed the Corporation that the sanction given by it was companytrary to numberification dated 16.6.1992.
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.
Ltd. respondent Nos.
S. Singhvi, J. 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.
1 and 2, who own plot No.
The decipherment of Gupta and Kutila script by Charles Wilkinson was a landmark in this regard.
He was supported by many persons who carried out survey of monuments in various parts of India.
2912 of 2002 in Suit No.
The same was rejected vide letter dated 15.9.1986 on the ground that the area was under companyprehensive development and the details of redevelopment companytrols drawings, if any, finalized by the Delhi Development Authority for short, the DDA were number available with the Corporation.
