Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2158 (ALL)

UTTAR PRADESH JAT MAHASABHA v. UNION OF INDIA

2008-10-21

A.P.SAHI, ASHOK BHUSHAN

body2008
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioner “Uttar Pradesh Jat Mahasabha” through its President Surendra Singh has filed the present writ petition praying for a mandamus commanding the respondent Union of India and the authorities of the State of U.P. to consider the declaration of the premises in question as a protected ancient monument of public importance under the Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and for a further direction to take steps for its protection by taking suitable action in the matter as the premises is sought to be demolished. 2. Sri P.C. Jain learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the decision in the case of Rajeev Mankotia v. Secretary to President of India, AIR 1997 SC 2766 , has urged that keeping in view the historical importance of the building and the heritage status thereof, the same should be declared to be a protected monument and it should not be allowed to be demolished either by the respondent No. 7 or their assignees. 3. This Public Interest Litigation was assigned by Hon’ble the Chief Justice to this bench to be decided along with the connected writ petition No. 47276 of 2008. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the Union of India and have also heard Sri V.K. Singh learned Senior Counsel who is for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 47276 of 2008. 5. The facts of this case and the past history of the litigation has already been dealt with in our judgment delivered today in Writ Petition No. 47276 of 2008 as such the same are not being repeated in this judgment. In short, the assignees of the respondent No. 7 claiming themselves to be their lessees had litigated the matter up to this Court in a proceeding arising, out of release of the building under U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. The litigation was decided on 26.3.2008 and the building was released in favour of Rangiji Sahkari Avas Ltd. who claim to be the lessees through the respondent No. 7. The aforesaid judgment has been placed on record as Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition No. 47276 of 2008. The premises in question was ultimately released and possession was also handed over under the said judgment. The aforesaid judgment has been placed on record as Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition No. 47276 of 2008. The premises in question was ultimately released and possession was also handed over under the said judgment. Thereafter a protest started for not allowing the owner and occupant from demolishing the said building with regard to which a communication ensued between the District Magistrate, the authorities of the State Govt, the Directorate of Archaeological Survey of State of U.P. and the Superintendent Archaeological Survey of India, Agra. The District Magistrate passed orders restraining the Sahkari Samiti from proceeding to demolish the building. The said Samiti filed Writ Petition No. 47276 of 2008 questioning the legality and the validity of the said order and the said petition has been allowed by us today through a separate judgment. 6. The present petition has been filed in the shape of a public interest litigation claiming protection of the same monument. We have heard counsel for the parties at length and we find that the petitioner organisation did not take any step for the declaration of the monument as a protected monument during the entire period of 11 years when the building was the government occupation and was ultimately released by the judgment dated 26.3.2008. The building was being occupied as a office of the Chief Development Officer and later on for the District Supply Officer. There is no evidence of any step having been taken for these long years seeking any such declaration and it is only after the judgment i.e. 26.3.2008, and when the possession was handed over to its lessee that the present protest started. The District Magistrate made all efforts to get any order from the State or from the Archaeological Survey of India but the response received by him was that there is no such consideration with the government of getting the monument declared as a protected monument .The Archaeological Survey official communicated to the District Magistrate that there are already 400 such protected monuments in and around Agra and it was not possible to take any other monument under the fold of its maintenance. This would be evident from the letter dated 1st September, 2008 which is on record of Writ Petition No. 47276 of 2008 and which has been decided after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition as well. 7. This would be evident from the letter dated 1st September, 2008 which is on record of Writ Petition No. 47276 of 2008 and which has been decided after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition as well. 7. To us, it appears that the present dispute which is sought to be raised by the instant writ petition is not a bona fide dispute. Learned Senior Counsel Sri V.K. Singh has, relying on decisions in the case of Balco Employees’ Union v. Union of India, (2002)2 SCC 333 (Paras 77 and 78); Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2005 SC 540 (Para 14); R & M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance, (2005)3 SCC 91 (Para 24) and Kushum Lata v. Union of India and others, (2006)6 SCC 180 (Para 13) urged that the petitioner, has no locus to maintain the petition as it is neither a bonafide person nor it is pursing a genuine cause. The petition have been set up by some motivated persons and rival builders to frustrate the judgment of this Court in favour of Sahkari Samiti rendered by this Court on 26.3.2008. 8. The facts narrated above would lead to the conclusion that as a matter of fact the petitioner did not show any bonafide interest even though the matter was pending before this Court and further even otherwise they did not volunteer to get the monument protected if they were so much interested in protection of the said monument. Whether a monument is a protected monument or not was for the authorities to have considered the same but from the letter dated 1.9.2008 of the District Magistrate we do not find any such inclination on the part of the concerned authorities to declare the monument as such. This writ petition has been pressed into service in the nature a public interest litigation only after the matter had been decided in favour of the Sahkari Samiti. To our mind the present litigation does not appear to be bonafide dispute keeping in view of the ratio of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Samiti. We have also given our anxious consideration to the issue while recording our reasons in the judgment of W. P.No. 47276 of 2008. 9. We accordingly do not see any reason to entertain this petition and the same is dismissed. —–———