CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8588 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 19 ,2011 Union of India .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S. S. Sandhu, Central Govt. Standing counsel, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Union of India has approached this Court through the present writ petition, seeking direction for the respondents to stop the illegal and unauthorised encroachment/construction, which is being carried out by local residents within 100 meters prohibited area and 200 meters regulated area of Centrally Protected Monument, namely, KOS Minar Akbarpur Barota, District Sonepat. Is the Union of India so helpless to stop illegal construction that it has made the present approach before this Court to seek writ or direction, that too primarily to the respondent-State of Haryana, Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8588 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: and Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, Haryana. Is it that the writ Court is required to intervene at the instance of Central Government to issue direction to a State Government or its agents to perform their duties in accordance with law? Surely, Central Government is not that helpless to take the help of a writ Court. There would be more than one mode for the Central Government to ensure that the State Government take action to protect the monuments. Notification has been issued by Central Government, declaring KOS Minar Akbarpur Barota, District Sonepat, as a Centrally Protected Monument. As a result of this notification, no person can carry out any construction activity within 100 meters of the boundaries of protected monuments and thereafter in a regulated area, which goes upto 200 meters. The construction in the regulated area can be done only with the prior permission of the Archeological Survey of India, who is the present petitioner before this Court. The petitioner has informed the local administration and the Deputy Commissioner about this notification. On 10.1.2009, Conservation Assistant, Kurukshetra, had reported that Varinder Bansal (respondent No.6) is carrying on some illegal and unauthorized construction within 100 meters of the prohibited area. Show cause notice was issued to respondent No.6 and a letter was also written to Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, with a request to check this illegal activity and to take action against the violators. Respondent No.6 had responded by saying that he has removed the illegal construction. He had also given an undertaking that in future, he will not do any construction within the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8588 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: prohibited area. In January 2011, it has again come to the notice of Superintendent, Archaeologist, that respondent Nos.6 to 10 have started illegal/unauthorized construction within the prohibited area of Centrally Protected Monuments. Notices were issued to them. The grievance now made is that the construction is going on but the local administration i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, Superintendent of Police, Sonepat and Station House Officer, City Police Station Sonepat, have done nothing to stop this illegal construction. The petitioner has, thus, filed this writ petition. It is strange to notice that Central Government or the State Government is not able to exercise effective control over the District Administration. Surely, Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police would not require to be directed through writ to take action, if some illegal activity or illegal construction is being carried out. The petitioner-Union of India can certainly approach the State Government for ensuring proper action in accordance with law. If Deputy Commissioner has not acted in the matter, the issue can be raised with the Commissioner or other superiors, including the State Government, instead of rushing to file a writ petition, as has been done. In any event, this Court has already issued very effective directions vide order dated 4.10.2008 in Civil Writ Petition No.17704 of 1997 (Munshi Ram Vs. State of Punjab and others), which are as follows:- “(i) the Archeological Survey of India, Chandigarh Circle, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8588 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: Chandigarh shall send detailed particulars, including the area of the land underneath an ancient/protected monument to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector of the district concerned where such monument is located in the State of Punjab and Haryana within a period of one month, if not sent already; (ii)the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector of the district concerned shall obtain a report from the revenue authorities regarding the encroachment, if any, made over the property of the ancient/protected monument within a period of one month from the date intimation regarding such ancient/protected monument is received from the Archeological Survey of India, Chandigarh Circle, Chandigarh and shall send a copy of the report to the Archaeological Survey of India, Chandigarh Circle, Chandigarh; (iii) it shall be the duty of the Archeological Survey of India, Chandigarh Circle, Chandigarh and also of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector of the district concerned to get the ancient/protected monument or the property attached thereto retrieved from the encroachers in accordance with law. Wherever such an encroacher has got an injunction order from the civil court, the Archeological Survey of India as well as the Collector shall produce a copy of this order before the civil court to enable it to pass an appropriate order CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8588 OF 2011 :{ 5 }: which may not be inconsistent with the directions issued hereinabove. The court concerned shall also be requested for early disposal of the pending suit/appeal, as the case may be; (iv)the Archeological Survey of India shall ensure that all the ancient or protected monuments are maintained, preserved, repaired or renovated periodically and the duty, if any, caste upon the Collector of a district in this regard under the 1958 Act shall be performed by him with or without any request from the Archeological Survey of India; (v)after removal of all encroachments from the ancient or protected monuments and/or their repair/renovations, a compliance report along with photographs of each of the said monuments shall be submitted to the Registry of this Court. The entire exercise, however, shall have to be carried out before 30.9.2009, failing which, besides suo moto, any public spirited person shall also be competent to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the erring Collector or the authorities of the Archeological Survey of India, Chandigarh Circle, Chandigarh; (vi)the Archeological Survey of India, Chandigarh Circle, Chandigarh, with the assistance of the District Administration concerned, shall further ensure that no part of the ancient or protected monument in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8588 OF 2011 :{ 6 }: possession of the encroachers or otherwise is damaged, defaced, altered or impaired, till such encroachments are removed.” Deputy Commissioners of the Districts have already been directed to obtain the report from revenue authorities regarding encroachment, if any, and are also required to send the copy of the report to Archeological Survey of India. Deputy Commissioner and Archeological Survey of India have also been directed to get the ancient/protected monuments retrieved from the encroachers in accordance with law. The Archaeological Survey of India is to ensure that all ancient and protected monuments are maintained, preserved, repaired/renovated periodically and Collector of the District is to perform the duties under Ancient Monument Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (for short, “1958 Act”), without even any request from the Archaeological Survey of India. That being the wide range of directions issued by this Court, there would hardly be any need to supplement all such directions. Different orders have thereafter been passed, which are also placed before me during the course of hearing, where this Court has acted in the matter by issuing direction to the Deputy Commissioner to ensure that no unauthorized construction is raised within the regulated area. These cases pertain to State of Punjab and so the directions were meant for Deputy Commissioners of Districts in Punjab. These wide ranging directions issued by this Court in Munshi Ram's case (supra) obviously have not been disseminated to the Deputy Commissioners in State of Haryana. It would, therefore, be appropriate for the State or for Union CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8588 OF 2011 :{ 7 }: of India to convey all these directions to all the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Haryana so as to apprise them about their responsibility to protect such monuments. It is highly undesirable that in each case, a writ Court would have to be approached for directing the State functionaries to act in accordance with law and to perform their duties. Matter also needs to be brought to the notice of State Government to ensure action in accordance with the provisions of the 1958 Act and also to ensure that the directions issued by this Court are complied with. Let copy of this order alongwith directions issued in Munshi Ram's case (supra) be sent to all the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Haryana and also to the Department of Home and any other Department, which is dealing with the protected monuments, at the State Government level. Such matters can easily be settled between the Central Government and the State Government concerned without invoking jurisdiction of the writ Court. The writ petition may not be very appropriate mode to seek interference in such like matters as there may be dispute on facts. The approach can always be made to Civil Court on the basis of directions issued by this Court. May 19,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE