JUDGMENT : Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. The captioned writ petitions are filed seeking writ of certiorari and quashing the impugned notice issued by 5th respondent as per Annexure-Q, Q1,Q2 to Q9 and Annexure- R and also for mandamus to direct the respondent to initiate acquisition proceedings as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The petitioners are claiming to be the owners of the properties which are situated within a protected area and the same are abutting to Agastyateertha pond. The petitioners have approached this Court by contending that 3rd respondent in pursuant to undertaking under Section 4 of Acquisition Act proceeded to issue declaration under Section 6(1) of Land Acquisition Act 1894 (For short' Act'). However, the 6th respondent/beneficiary failed to deposit amount required for making payment to petitioners and thereby acquisition proceedings were dropped. 3. The petitioners have also stated that 4th respondent tried to evict petitioners and others and as such a representation was submitted to 4th respondent on 21.10.2015 and the said representation was a request to rehabilitation by providing all amenities. The said representations are placed on record as per Annexure-O and P. The petitioners have further stated that 5th respondent without there being acquisition of properties and rehabilitation scheme has issued the impugned notice with a direction to remove the encroachment within 10 days failing which authorities will exercise powers under Section 19(2) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and would remove the encroachment. The present petitioners are the owners of the petition properties as narrated in para Nos.1 to 12 of the writ petition are before this Court seeking writ of certiorari to quash impugned notice issue by the 5th respondent. 4. The grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that the action of the respondents in attempting to evacuate the petitioners is without having recourse to due process of law and also without rehabilitating. Therefore, petitioners are before this Court seeking writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notice issued by the 5th respondent. 5. On receipt of notice, the 4th respondent has tendered appearance and statement of objection is filed. The 5th respondent/authority who has initiated the eviction process has also tendered appearance and had filed statement of objections. 6. Therefore, petitioners are before this Court seeking writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notice issued by the 5th respondent. 5. On receipt of notice, the 4th respondent has tendered appearance and statement of objection is filed. The 5th respondent/authority who has initiated the eviction process has also tendered appearance and had filed statement of objections. 6. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners would vehemently argue and contended before this Court and submit that petitioners are absolute owners of the respective premises which are narrated in detail at para No.s 1 to 12 of the writ petition and therefore, the impugned notices issued by the 5th respondent by treating them as unauthorized occupants is totally illegal and on the same ground the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel would further vehemently argue and contend before this Court that 5th respondent is not a competent authority and has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices. It is also contended that 5th respondent has no power to invoke the provisions of Section 19 of the above said Act. He would also submit to this Court that the petition properties are in existence since pre-independence and therefore, the existence of residential houses would not come within the purview of definition of new construction as defined under Section 2 D(C) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. 8. The second limb of argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no notification of protected area unless there is a specific declaration in official gazette, the respondent-authorities cannot invoke the provisions of Section 19 of the above said Act. On these set of grounds, the learned counsel appearing for petitioners would submit to this Court that high handed action of 5th respondent if not interfered with, the petitioners who are lawful owners and or in lawful possession for the last five decades would lose valuable rights in the properties. 9. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in WP No.22961/2011 and judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Darshan Singh V/s Rakesh Tiwari and Ors. rendered in Civil appeal No.2431/2006, Judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench in WP Nos.1086-681/2018. 10. 9. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in WP No.22961/2011 and judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Darshan Singh V/s Rakesh Tiwari and Ors. rendered in Civil appeal No.2431/2006, Judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench in WP Nos.1086-681/2018. 10. Per contra, leaned counsel appearing for 5th respondent repelling the contentions urged in the writ petition would submit to this Court that the contentions of the petitioners that there is no declaration of protected area is factually incorrect. To counter this contention, he would take this Court to Annexure-R1 and submit that the then Bombay Government by Gazette Notification dated 173.05.1929 has issued preliminary notification by exercising powers contained under Section 8(1) of the Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1904. By placing reliance on this notification, he would submit to this Court that the subject matter of the present writ petition is notified as protected area. 11. He would also further submit to this Court that preliminary notification was confirmed by issuing final notification as per Annexure-R2. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that the 5th respondent has no authority to counter the same he submits that there is a delegation of power under the Act and 5th respondent derives authority under Section 2(C) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The petitioners have no locus to question the authority of 5th respondent. 12. The Counsel appearing for 5th respondent would also bring to the notice of this Court that the disputed residential houses are virtually located on mote walls and this would squarely fall within the protected area and therefore, if the said structures are not removed forth with there is every likelyhood of the water tank getting polluted and there is every possibility of damage to the mote walls. 13. The learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent would submit to this Court that owing to the large scale encroachment over the protected lands, the Government of India headed by Ministry of Culture issued a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkot and in the said direction, it was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities that around 96 houses have been illegally constructed by encroaching on the protected area and therefore, directed to remove the said encroachment. The direction issued by the Union of India is placed on record as per Annexure-R9. In the said statement of objection, the 4th respondent has made a statement that those respondents who do not possess alternate sites would be provided with alternate site/residence and a further statement is also made that the respondents would not be hurriedly evacuate residents from the protected area unless respondent/Authority would come up with rehabilitation scheme and provide alternate accommodation. On these set of defence, the counsel for 4th respondent submitted that the grounds urged in the writ petition are devoid of merits and since encroachment pertains to protected area, a swift action needs to be taken and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits has to be dismissed forthwith. 14. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and learned HCGP. 15. The respondents to negate the contentions raised by the petitioners herein have produced the maps issued by ISRO as per Annexure-R7 and R8 and same is produced along with statement of objection filed by the 4th respondent. The said maps clearly indicates and prima facie demonstrate that the 96 properties squarely fall in the protected area. Though, petitioners before this Court have made attempts in disputing the correctness of these maps, however, since the maps are issued by ISRO in corroboration with archeological survey of India, a certain amount of credence has to be attached to these maps which are placed on record as per Annexure R7 and R8. The protected area is clearly demarked in blue portion in both the maps and perusal of the same clearly demonstrates that cluster of structures are found within the notified blue portion and there is reference that 96 properties squarely fall in protected area. If the materials placed on record by respondents/authorities are meticulously examined, I would find that in fact some of the residential houses are found on mote walls of the tank. 16. The object of preserving and restoring locally important historical monuments are in two folds. First of all, preservation and restoration plays a cultural role. The old historical monuments teaches us about the history and promotes the respect for those who lived in different times and different societies. Architectural monuments cultivates pride of our past. 16. The object of preserving and restoring locally important historical monuments are in two folds. First of all, preservation and restoration plays a cultural role. The old historical monuments teaches us about the history and promotes the respect for those who lived in different times and different societies. Architectural monuments cultivates pride of our past. Secondly, economy is an important merit of keeping the old monuments which would attract tourists and that will enable to generate local jobs and extra income. Innovation in architecture is no doubt extremely important but preserving and restoring old monuments is equally important because those old monuments are the reflection of our history. There has been a trend in this country where there is insufficient respect to our old architectural monuments and this aspect is virtually neglected by the concerned authorities and the present case on hand is a classic case which indicates failure on the part of authorities in not preserving the Agastyateertha pond which is the subject matter of the petition land. Though new innovative designs and modern architectural projects are to be encouraged, at the same time, it is a bounden duty of the State and the concerned authority to preserve ancient monuments. Badami is one of the off beat historic place in Karnataka where exquisite temples and historical monuments are located. The megalithic dolmens is the evidence that this city was settled in prehistoric times. Badami has set of four elaborately carved cave temples. These caves are located within the vicinity of this Agastyateertha pond. Undisputedly, these caves overlook the ancient Agastyateertha pond built sometimes in the fifth century. The Agastyateertha pond is a major attraction of Badami. 17. Having regard to the fact that the Agastyateertha pond has already been declared as an ancient monument of national importance, thereby the same needs to be preserved and protected. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioners while canvassing the arguments was fair enough to show his sensitiveness and did not counter the stand taken by the respondent/authorities that these areas are to be protected and the respondents who are residing around this old heritage also have a desire to protect the monument. 19. Having regard to the fact that the Agastyateertha is already declared as ancient monument of national importance thereby the same needs to be preserved and protected. 20. 19. Having regard to the fact that the Agastyateertha is already declared as ancient monument of national importance thereby the same needs to be preserved and protected. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, aired his apprehension that the respondents-authorities would may in all possibility dispossess the petitioner without providing alternative accommodation. 21. The material on record would clearly indicate that the respondent-authorities have already formulated a scheme and they have taken a decision that the possession of these disputed structures will be taken only after providing adequate compensation and alternate plots. The material on record also indicates that, the respondent-authorities have already purchased the land to provide alternative accommodation. All these materials if taken into consideration, I would find that the action of respondent-authorities does not lack any bona fides. 22. The materials on record clearly indicates that the structure are falling within the protected area and in fact some of the houses are virtually located on the mote walls of the tank which is declared as old heritage of national importance. 23. In that view of the matter, the grounds urged in the writ petition are devoid of merits accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER Writ petitions are dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petitions would not come in the way of petitioners in approaching the respondent-authorities to seek alternate accommodation and compensation. The eligible residents are at liberty to submit application seeking compensation as well as alternate site. Unless the scheme is finalized and compensation is paid to the eligible residents who are situated in the protected area, the concerned authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps.