Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 37 (RAJ)

Kila Nagrik Vikas Sansthan v. Union of India

2006-01-04

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, N.N.MATHUR

body2006
Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-The instant petition has been filed under the label of public interest litigation by Kila Nagrik Vikas Sansthan, a registered society constituted inter alia to strive for welfare of the inhabitants in the Fort Area of Chittorgarh. The Society also claims to take care of the historical monuments situated within the Fort Area. 2. It is averred that ancestors of the members of the petitioner Society constructed houses within the fort area on the land owned and possessed by them. The acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1976 for acquiring land within the rampart area of the fort for the protection of monuments and archaeological sites. It is claimed that none of the members of the petitioner Society or their predecessors in title were afforded any sort of opportunity of hearing in the land acquisition proceedings. The Land Acquisition Officer, Chittorgarh passed the award in the year 1979 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the members of petitioner Society. Obviously no compensation has been paid. However, notices have been issued to the members of the petitioner Society by the second respondent Superintending Archaeologist, Jaipur in purported exercise of powers conferred by Section 19 (2) of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1958) read with Rule 41 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1959), thereby they have been asked to remove the unauthorized constructions in the prohibited/regulatory area of the Chittorgarh Fort. The notices have been served on the persons named in Schedule B appended to the writ petition. 3. The prayer with respect to Para B pertaining the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings was deleted by the order of this Court dated 15.01.2004. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Archaeological Department. It is claimed that the subject land has been acquired for the improvement and the beautification of the monuments in the year 1979. As such the subject land vests with the Archaeological Department. Thus, the members of the petitioner Society have rightly been served notices under Section 19 (1) and (2) of the Act of 1958. It is claimed that the subject land has been acquired for the improvement and the beautification of the monuments in the year 1979. As such the subject land vests with the Archaeological Department. Thus, the members of the petitioner Society have rightly been served notices under Section 19 (1) and (2) of the Act of 1958. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court by order dated 28.04.2004 directed the respondents to prepare a scheme for rehabilitation of the members of the petitioner Society, who are sought to be evicted. 4. Pursuant to the directions of this Court a scheme for rehabilitation has been prepared and the same has been placed before this Court. The members of the petitioner Society have raised certain objection as to the scheme. 5. On reluctance shown by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to accept the rehabilitation scheme the respondents have reiterated their preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is asserted that the subject land has been acquired in accordance with the law. The land is vested with the Archaeological Department. The members of the petitioner Society and/or their predecessors as such are not entitled to any sort of relief more particularly in equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, we have some sympathy to the members of the petitioner Society as they are poor persons and have been residing in the Fort for number of years. The question as to the correctness of acquisition proceedings cannot be examined in the instant petition. Sufficient indulgence has been given by this Court directing the respondents to prepare a rehabilitation scheme. We hope and trust that the respondents will execute the rehabilitation scheme in the interest of the members of the petitioner Society in right earnest manner. Nothing more is required to be done. The writ petition stands disposed of without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties before the appropriate forum.