ORDER : 1. The petitioner - Sri. Lakshmi Golden Beach Resort, a registered Partnership Firm is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 28.07.2010 bearing No........4/2008-09/503 issued by respondent No. 1 and for a writ of mandamus directing respondents No. 1 and 2 not to interfere in the running of Sri. Lakshmi Golden Beach Resort and to renew license for the vegetarian and non-vegetarian Restaurant including all other facilities as granted by license in 1999. Under endorsement dated 28.07.2010 Annexure-AA the petitioner’s request for renewal of Resort license has been refused. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No. 3, Sri. Prashant F. Goudar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1- Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority (‘HWHAMA’ for short) and Sri. Sanjay S. Katageri, learned counsel for respondent No. 2-Panchayat. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the father of Managing Partner of the petitioner-Firm had obtained conversion from agriculture to commercial in respect of land in Sy. No. 41/A to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas out of 6 acres 23 guntas situated at Virupapura Gaddi village, Anegundi Panchayat, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District on 17.02.1999. Thereafter, he applied for building license to respondent No. 2-Gran Panchayat. The respondent No. 2-Gran Panchayat as per Annexure-B dated 25.02.1999 issued license for construction of building with certain conditions. The petitioner had also applied to the Gram Panchayat seeking permission to run Hotel in the building. The respondent No. 2 under Annexure-C dated 25.02.1999 accorded permission to run the Restaurant and as per Annexure-D issued license to run Sri. Lakshmi Golden Beach Restaurant and Resort. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Annexure-E, the Tourism Department of the Government of Karnataka approved the petitioner’s Hotel project. Under Annexure-F dated 17.10.2002, the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India had sought clarification from the Deputy commissioner, Koppal District-respondent No. 3 herein with regard to approval given to the project of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal addressed a letter on 29.03.2003 under Annexure-G to the Tahasildar, Gangavathi seeking report among others as to whether the petitioner’s Resort i.e. Sri. Lakshmi Golden Beach Resort falls within the Hampi Authority. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal addressed a letter on 29.03.2003 under Annexure-G to the Tahasildar, Gangavathi seeking report among others as to whether the petitioner’s Resort i.e. Sri. Lakshmi Golden Beach Resort falls within the Hampi Authority. Accordingly, under Annexure-J, the Commissioner of Hampi Authority sent the report stating that the land of the petitioner in Sy. No. 41/A of Virupapura Gaddi village falls within the core zone area of the Authority and no permission for construction of building has been granted by the Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation dated 14.03.2008 to the respondent No. 1 seeking permission to open the Resort and to renew the license. After getting necessary reports from the various Authorities, the respondent No. 1-Authority issued impugned endorsement on 28.07.2010 refusing to renew the Resort license. Challenging the said endorsement and seeking for a writ of mandamus as stated above, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has obtained necessary license from the Gram Panchayat for construction of building as well as to start the Resort. It is his submission that the permission has been obtained by the petitioner prior to coming into force of HWHAMA Act in 2003. Therefore, he submits that the permission granted by the Gram Panchayat for construction of building and Resort would be sufficient. Further, he submits that in view of the license issued by the Gram Panchayat earlier to coming into force of HWHAMA Act in 2003, the respondent No. 1 ought to have issued permission to start the Resort and renewed the license. The petitioner submits that he has made huge investment and running the Resort since 1999 and hence, he may be permitted to continue to run the Resort. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that under the Master Plan published for Hampi Area 2021, the petitioner’s land falls in urbanisable Area and as such he may be permitted to make representation to the respondent No. 1, seeking permission to run the Hotel and Resort. 5. Per contra, the learned counsels for the respondents would submit that mere obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat would not be sufficient as the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological sites and Remains Act, 1961 (‘1961 Act’ for short) was operating for the area prior to coming into force of HWHAMA Act in the year 2003. 5. Per contra, the learned counsels for the respondents would submit that mere obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat would not be sufficient as the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological sites and Remains Act, 1961 (‘1961 Act’ for short) was operating for the area prior to coming into force of HWHAMA Act in the year 2003. Therefore, the petitioner was required to obtain permission under Section 20 of 1961 Act, which he has not obtained. After coming into force of the HWHAMA Act, the petitioner was required to obtain permission from respondent No. 1-Authority under Section 14 of the HWHAMA Act. Moreover, the Virupapura Gaddi village falls in the core zone of the Authority and in the Master Plan published vide Government Order dated 27.05.2008, no development is permitted in the core zone area of the Master Plan. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s land in Sy. No. 41/A is in Virupapura Gaddi village. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had obtained building license/Resort license from respondent No. 2-Gram Panchayat on 25.02.1999 under Annexure-B and C. Further, the Tourism Department had also approved the Hotel project. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had not taken permission either under 1961 Act or under HWHAMA Act. The Commissioner-respondent No. 1 under Annexure-J has made it clear that the petitioner’s land in Sy. No. 41/A falls within the core zone area of the respondent No. 1-Authority and it has also made it clear that no building license was issued by the respondent No. 1-Authority. Prior to coming into force of HWHAMA Act 2003, 1961 Act was operating in the area. Section 2 of 1961 Act also defines protected area and it also authorizes issuance of notification in respect of the protected areas. It is noticed that the Government in exercise of its power under Section 19(3) of 1961 Act, by issuing notification had declared Virupapura Gaddi village as protected area. Section 20 of the 1961 Act reads as follows: “20. Section 2 of 1961 Act also defines protected area and it also authorizes issuance of notification in respect of the protected areas. It is noticed that the Government in exercise of its power under Section 19(3) of 1961 Act, by issuing notification had declared Virupapura Gaddi village as protected area. Section 20 of the 1961 Act reads as follows: “20. Restrictions 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 utilize such area or any par t thereof in any other manner without the permission of the 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 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 Deputy Commissioner may cause the building to be removed and the person shall be liable to pay the cost of such removal.” A reading of Sub-Section (1) of Section 20 of 1961 Act would require prior permission from the Government for construction of any building within the protected area. In the protected area only cultivation could be carried on. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has not obtained permission under Section 20 of the 1961 Act. After coming into force of HWHAMA Act in the year 2002, permission is required under Section 14 of HWHAMA Act. Section 14 of the HWHAMA Act reads as follows: “Section 14: No other authority or person to undertake development without permission of the Authority: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, except with the previous permission of the Authority, no other authority or person shall undertake any development within the Heritage Area, of the types as the Authority may from time to time specify by notification published in the Official Gazette. (2) No local authority shall grant permission for any development referred to in sub-section (1), within the Heritage Area, unless the Authority has granted permission for such development. (3) Any authority or person desiring to undertake development referred to in sub-section (1) shall apply in writing to the Authority for permission to undertake such development. (4) The Authority may, after making such inquiry as it deems necessary grant such permission without or with such conditions, as it may deem fit, to impose or refuse to grant such permission. (5) Any authority or person aggrieved by the decision of the Authority under sub-section (4) may, within thirty days from the date of the decision appeal against such decision to the State Government, whose decision thereon shall be final: Provided that, where the aggrieved authority submitting such appeal is under the administrative control of the Central Government, the appeal shall be decided by the State Government, after consultation with the Central Government. (6) In case any person or authority does anything contrary to the decision given under sub-section (4) as modified in sub-section (5), the Authority shall have power to pull down, demolish or remove any development under taken contrary to such decision and recover the cost of such pulling down, demolition or removal from the person or authority concerned.” A reading of the above provision would make it clear that no person or Authority without the previous permission of the Authority shall undertake any development within the heritage area and no local Authority shall grant permission for any development within the heritage area unless the Authority has granted permission for such development. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 1443-1456/2020 in the case of Sakkubai vs. State of Karnataka and Others dealing with Section 14 of the HWHAMA Act as well as Section 20 of the 1961 Act, has held as follows: “9. upon perusing the material on record and in light of the arguments advanced by the parties, the following issues arise for our consideration in this appeal: (i) Whether the construction raised by the appellants was lawful under the 1961 Act, in light of the 1988 notification? (ii) If not, whether the HWHAMA had authority to demolish the said constructions? upon perusing the material on record and in light of the arguments advanced by the parties, the following issues arise for our consideration in this appeal: (i) Whether the construction raised by the appellants was lawful under the 1961 Act, in light of the 1988 notification? (ii) If not, whether the HWHAMA had authority to demolish the said constructions? 15..........From a reading of sub-section (1) of Section 20, it is evident that owners/occupiers of protected areas cannot construct any building or utilize such areas in any manner other than cultivation, without the permission of the State Government. 16. Here, since the entire area comprising Virupapura Gaddi had been declared as protected area vide the 1988 notification, it follows that the land owned by the appellants could have only been used for the purpose of cultivation after the issuance of such notification. However, as mentioned supra, the appellants had constructed huts and buildings on their lands for the commercial purpose of running hotels, restaurants and guest houses. Clearly then, these constructions were in violation of Section 29(1) of the 1961 Act. 17. Further more, the permissions/licenses obtained by the appellants from the local panchayat were issued without any authority, as Section 20(1) of the 1961 Act makes the State Government the appropriate authority for granting permissions for non-cultivable use of protected areas. Thus, the licenses issued by the panchayat cannot but be said to be illegal. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that by virtue of the 1988 notification declaring the entire village of Virupapura Gaddi as a protected area, the restrictions on construction and use under Section 20(1) came into operation with effect from 22.10.1988 itself. Thus, the construction carried out by the appellants on their lands at Virupapura Gaddi for commercial purposes was in violation of the 1961 Act. 25.........Evidently, under Section 14(1), the HWHAMA is made the sole authority for undertaking development in the heritage area of such types as it may specify by a notification. 25.1. Though the Appellants have contended that such a notification under Section 14(1) is a precondition for the HWHAMA to exercise its powers to order demolition under Section 14(6), we are not inclined to accept such an argument. 25.1. Though the Appellants have contended that such a notification under Section 14(1) is a precondition for the HWHAMA to exercise its powers to order demolition under Section 14(6), we are not inclined to accept such an argument. In view of the co-terminus legislative scheme of the 1961 Act and the Hampi Act, we find that Section 14 of the Hampi Act acts as an overarching provision that enables the issuance of a further notification to control development in the Hampi heritage area. This, however, does not mean that the lack of a notification under Section 14(1) renders a prior notification intended for the same purpose unenforceable, as is the case with the 1988 notification here. 25.2. In any case, we find that the notification dated 10.07.2008 regarding the implementation of the Master Plan 2021 and the Zonal Regulations fulfils the requirement of Section 14(1) in the present case, as they clearly specify the restrictions as to land use and the prohibited types of development. Thus, the Appellants cannot use the absence of regulation of Virupapura Gaddi as a ground to justify the illegal construction on their land. 26. In light of the foregoing discussion, we conclude that the construction of rooms, thatched roof huts, temporary structures, and buildings by the Appellants to carry on the business of hotels, restaurants, or guesthouses in Virupapura Gaddi was in violation of the 1961 Act. Further, it is held that the HWHAMA had the authority to proceed with the demolition of such illegal constructions. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned final judgment and order dated 27.04.2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka. 27. In view of these findings, the Respondents shall proceed with the demolition of the illegal structures erected by the Appellants in Virupapura Gaddi within a period of one month from the date of this order. With such observations, the instant appeals stand dismissed. Ordered accordingly.” 8. 27. In view of these findings, the Respondents shall proceed with the demolition of the illegal structures erected by the Appellants in Virupapura Gaddi within a period of one month from the date of this order. With such observations, the instant appeals stand dismissed. Ordered accordingly.” 8. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner’s land falls within the urbanisable area in the Master Plan 2021 of respondent No. 1-Authority and he may be permitted to make representation to respondent No. 1 also cannot be appreciated in view of the fact that the notification issued under Section 19(3) of 1961 Act in the year 1988 declares Virupapura Gaddi village as a protected area, would restrict the development under Section 20(1) of 1961 Act and thereafter under Section 14 of HWHAMA Act. The above decision would further make it clear that permission/licenses obtained from the local Panchayat were without any authority. 9. For the reasons stated above and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred above, I find no merit in the writ petition. The respondent No. 1-Authority is justified in issuing endorsement dated 28.07.2010 at Annexure-AA. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.