JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---The petitioner challenges the acquisition of part of Survey No. 154/2 admeasuring 4075 sq. mts. and part of Survey No. 154/3 admeasuring 8,900 sq. mts. which was notified vide Notification dated 31st May, 1995, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and Notification dated 12th August, 1996, under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner claims that Survey  No. 154/2 has been inherited by him vide Deed of Partition dated 3rd July, 1971 and Survey No. 154/3 was leased to his father by Santa Casa de Misericordia de Goa and that the petitioner continues to be lessee of the said Survey No. 154/3. According to the petitioner these two properties are agricultural properties and there exist various fruit bearing trees therein. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the challenge to the acquisition is basically on two grounds, namely :--- 1. The area acquired falls within 22 mts. of the protected monuments wherein no development or construction is permissible within 100 mts. of the said limits and beyond 100 to 200 mts. the construction activity is regulated and that no permission has been taken by the petitioner to construct the restaurant within the said protected limits between 100 to 200 mts. ; and 2. That the acquired area in question is shown as preservation zone in the outline development plan and the same cannot be converted into any other use. Learned Advocate for the petitioner took us through the various provisions applicable on the subject and urged that the acquisition Notifications have to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submitted that insofar as Survey No. 154/3 is concerned, the petitioner has no locus standi, since all assets and properties of Santa Casa de Misericordia de Goa vest in the Government by virtue of the Government Notification dated 16th August, 1963, which is at Exh. R. 1 at page 198. It is then pointed out that in terms of section 56 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, no claim of tenancy of the petitioner can be entertained as the provisions of the Tenancy Act are not attracted to land which vests in the Government. In respect of Survey No. 154/2, it is urged that compensation has already been awarded to the petitioner and others in respect of acquisition of the same. In respect of Survey No. 154/2, it is urged that compensation has already been awarded to the petitioner and others in respect of acquisition of the same. 4. Insofar as Survey No. 154/3 is concerned, the same already vests in the Government and tenancy claim made by the petitioner in respect of the same is not permissible in view of section 56 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. As such, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition in respect of Survey No. 154/3. 5. On the question of construction in the prohibited area, it is urged by learned Government Advocate that proposed restaurant would be constructed beyond 100 mts. from the protected limits and that the area within 100 mts. from the protected limits shall be suitably landscaped and developed into Heritage Park. In this connection our attention was drawn to para 39 of the affidavit in reply dated 9th March, 1999, filed by the Under Secretary Revenue Department of the Government of Goa. It is also pertinent to note that necessary permission from the Central Government has been obtained for the construction of the restaurant. Insofar as the challenge relating to preservation zone is concerned, it is submitted that permission has already been obtained for conversion and there has been no challenge to the conversion from preservation zone to commercial zone. Therefore, according to the learned Government Advocate, there is no merit in the petition and the petition be rejected. 6. Sections 19 and 20 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter called "the Act") deals with protected areas. Section 19 contemplates restriction on enjoyment of property rights in the protected areas and it reads as under :--- "19. 6. Sections 19 and 20 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter called "the Act") deals with protected areas. Section 19 contemplates restriction on enjoyment of property rights in the protected areas and it reads as under :--- "19. Restriction on enjoyment of property rights in protected areas.---(1) No person, including the owner or occupier of a protected area, shall construct any building within the protected area or carry on any mining, quarrying, excavating, blasting or any operation of a like nature in such area, or utilise such area or any part thereof in any other manner without the permission of the Central Government : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to prohibit the use of any such area or part thereof for purposes of cultivation if such cultivation does not involve the digging of not more than one foot of soil from the surface. (2) The Central Government may, by order, direct that any building constructed by any person within a protected area in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be removed within a specified period and, if the person refuses or fails to comply with the order, the Collector may cause the building to be removed and the person shall be liable to pay the cost of such removal." 7. Chapter III of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules (hereinafter called "the said Rules"), deals with construction and other operations in protected areas. Rule 10 prohibits the construction or mining operation within the protected area except with the permission of the Central Government. Rule 10 reads as under :--- "10. Permission required for construction etc.- (1) No person shall undertake any construction or mining operation within a protected area except under and in accordance with a permission granted in this behalf by the Central Government. (2) Every application for permission under sub-Rule (1) shall be made to the Central Government in Form I at least three months before the date of commencement of the construction or operation." 8. Standing Order 1764 issued by the Department of Culture, Archaeological Survey of India at page 67 of the petition, has declared areas upto 100 mts. from the protected limits and further beyond it upto 200 mts. near or adjoining protected monuments to be prohibited and regulated areas respectively, for the purpose of both mining operations and construction. Standing Order 1764 issued by the Department of Culture, Archaeological Survey of India at page 67 of the petition, has declared areas upto 100 mts. from the protected limits and further beyond it upto 200 mts. near or adjoining protected monuments to be prohibited and regulated areas respectively, for the purpose of both mining operations and construction. 9. Thus, from a reading of various connected provisions, it follows that no construction is permissible within 100 mts. from the protected limits, but beyond 100 mts. upto 200 mts. near or adjoining protected monuments the construction and other activities could be regulated. This regulation is controlled by the Central Government in terms of Rule 10 of the said Rules. The contention of learned Advocate for the petitioner is that no permission has been obtained by the respondents from the Central Government in this behalf. The respondents relied upon permission granted by letter dated 13th February, 1997, (Exh. R. 8 colly.) of the Archaeological Survey of India, Government of India. By this letter N.O.C. for construction of Tourist Restaurant at Old Goa has been granted on certain terms and conditions. This permission is obviously from the Central Government as the Central Government works through various departments. The matter pertains to protected monuments and, as such, N.O.C. given by Archaeological Survey of India is permission from the Central Government . The respondents have categorically stated in para 39 of the affidavit in reply dated 9th March, 1999, that the construction of the proposed restaurant would be beyond 100 mts. from the protected limits and the area upto 100 mts. shall be suitably landscaped and developed into Heritage Park. 10. In view of the above discussion, we find that there is no merit in the first challenge advanced by the petitioner to the acquisition. 11. Coming to the second challenge, it is no doubt true that the survey numbers in question were shown as preservation zones in the Outline Development Plan. However, the same has been permitted to be converted into commercial C-2 zone. There is no challenge to this conversion. By Order dated 8th November, 1996, the respondents were permitted to apply for various permissions necessary for the project during the pendency of the proceedings. However, the same has been permitted to be converted into commercial C-2 zone. There is no challenge to this conversion. By Order dated 8th November, 1996, the respondents were permitted to apply for various permissions necessary for the project during the pendency of the proceedings. Learned Advocate for the petitioner drew our attention to Regulation 26 of the Planning and Development Authority (Development Plan) Regulations, 1989, framed under section 141 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, but the learned Government Advocate pointed out that the said Regulations are not applicable to the acquired lands, since the acquired lands do not fall in the planning area. In fact, section 1(3) of the said Regulations states that the Regulations extend to the whole of the planning area. Therefore, until and unless an area is notified as planning area, the Regulations obviously would not be applicable to such areas. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the second challenge advanced by the petitioner. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the petition is hereby rejected with costs. Interim Order dated 8th November, 1996, stands vacated. Petition rejected. -----