THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.P.NO.8112 OF 2007 10-12-2009 BETWEEN; K.Ganga Kishen and three others ...Petitioners vs. The Government of A.P. rep. by its District Collector, Nizamabad and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.P.NO.8112 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The petitioners are resident of Domakonda Village and Manda Nizamabad District. They seek a declaration that the failure of th respondent Nos.1 and 2 in taking action in terms of Section 6 of the A.P Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remain Act, 1960 (for short “ Act of 1960”); and failure to protect the Domakond Fort, is illegal. The petitioners seek a consequential direction to th respondents to ensure that no new constructions are made in the ope spaces within the Fort area and a direction to the non-official respondent or any other person claiming them to prevent modifications to the existin structures other than for maintenance and to direct the official respondent to prevent activities which are detrimental to the culture and heritage of th Fort including by way of sale of the properties by the unofficia respondents. The petitioners claim that Domakonda Fort is an ancient and heritage monument constructed over four centuries ago with fort walls an bastions of granite and a moat around the Fort. It is stated that there is 700-year-old temple of the Kakatiya period known as “Mahadev Temple apart from heritage buildings of the erstwhile Rajas of “Domakond Samstanam”. It is alleged that within the Fort premises there are ol buildings belonging to the 4th respondent and anothe bungalow belonging to K.Rajeswar Rao and K.Satyanarayana Ra (respondent Nos.5 and 6) and that the present descendants of erstwhil Rajas are proceeding to alter the structures and are attempting to damag the Fort walls thereby spoiling the archaeological and historica significance of the Fort. It is also asserted that the Fort area has bee declared as a protected monument under the provisions of the Act o 1960. The writ petition is filed on the grievance that the officia respondents 1 to 3 have failed to take action in accordance with th provisions of the Act of 1960. As there is an allegation that the properties were being alienated b the non-official respondents or at their behest, by an interim order date 19-04-2007 this court restrained the official respondents from recognizing approving or registering any document pertaining to alienation of th property forming part of the Domakonda Fort and the District Collecto Nizamabad was directed to instruct all the officials working under hi administrative control including the registering authorities not to registe any document involving alienation of the land or the properties forming pa of or attached to the said Fort. Eventually, the 1st respondent issued a memo dated 19.11.2009 afte receiving a report from the 2nd respondent permitting Sri Anil Kamineni so of the 4th respondent to purchase the properties within the Domakond Fort subject to entering into an agreement with the Director of Archaeolog and Museums, Government of Andhra Pradesh in accordance with th provisions of the Act of 1960. The 2nd respondent was directed in thi memo of the 1st respondent to follow the Rules under the provisions o Section 6 of the Act of 1960. When the matter is taken up today, the 2nd respondent has submitte an Action Taken Report (ATR) which included an agreement entered int between the 2nd respondent and Anil Kamineni in terms of Section 6 (1) o the Act of 1960. The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that in view of thi agreement there is now an instrument, which adequately safeguards th Domakonda Fort and the culture and heritage of this ancient monumen The agreement as apparent does contain a clause that in case An Kamineni intends to sell the schedule properties, notice should be given t the Government and a right is reserved in the Government to purchase th property or specified portions thereof at market value, qua this clause it i possible to infer that if the Government decides not to purchase propertie at the market value the other party to the agreement, Anil Kamineni, woul be at liberty to sell the properties and thereby affect adversely th preservation and maintenance of this notified archaeological monument. On a closer scrutiny of the matter however, it is apparent that thi agreement between the Director of Archaeology and Museums and An Kamineni cannot overreach or be contrary to the contouring provisions o the Act of 1960 which disables any disfigurement or diminution of th heritage and culture of this protected monument. All the clauses in th agreement are subject to the provisions of the Act. In the context of the above developments, no further orders need b passed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. The interim order dated 19-04-2007 stands dissolved. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 10th DECEMBER 2009 TSNR