IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1476 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 19, 2011 Union of India ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE GU GU GU GURDEV SINGH RDEV SINGH RDEV SINGH RDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu, Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed by the Union of India against the judgment dated 19.5.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge directing the Deputy Commissioners of the districts to obtain the report from revenue authorities regarding encroachment, if any, and also requiring them to send a copy of the report to the Archeological Survey of India. They have also been directed to get the ancient/protected monuments retrieved from the encroachers in accordance with law so that such protected monuments are maintained, preserved, repaired/renovated periodically. The Collector of the districts have been asked to perform their duties under the Ancient Monument Archeological LPA No. 1476 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), without any request from the Archaeological Survey of India. The aforesaid wide ranging directions issued by this Court in the case of Munshi Munshi Munshi Munshi Ram Ram Ram Ram v. v. v. v. State of Punjab and others State of Punjab and others State of Punjab and others State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 17704 of 1997, (CWP No. 17704 of 1997, (CWP No. 17704 of 1997, (CWP No. 17704 of 1997, decided on 4.10.2008 decided on 4.10.2008 decided on 4.10.2008 decided on 4.10.2008, have been extended to the State of Haryana by the learned Single Judge, as would be amply shown by the following observations:- “ ……These wide ranging directions issued by this Court in Munshi Ram's case Munshi Ram's case Munshi Ram's case Munshi Ram's case (supra) (supra) (supra) (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 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 Munshi Ram's case Munshi Ram's case 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, LPA No. 1476 of 2011 (O&M) 3 which is dealing with the protected monuments, at the State Government level. …….” 2. The Union of India filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking direction to the respondent State of Haryana to stop illegal and unauthorized encroachment/construction by the local residents within 100 meters prohibited area and within 200 meters regulated area of the centrally protected monument, namely, KOS Minar Akbarpur Barota (District Sonepat). The aforesaid monument was declared as protected monument under Section 3(1) of the Ancient Monument Preservation Act, 1904, on 10.12.1917 (P-3) by the notification issued by the Punjab Government. The Union of India placed reliance on notification dated 16.6.1992 declaring prohibited and regulated areas around the centrally protected monuments/sites, which means that no person can carry out any construction activity within 100 meters within the boundary of the monument/protected site and beyond the 100 meters prohibited area the regulated area starts which goes up to 200 meters in which construction could be raised with the prior permission of the department. 3. The learned Single Judge felt surprise that the appellant like the Union of India has to approach this Court by filing writ petition against the respondent State of Haryana for issuance of directions despite the fact that direction issued by the Division Bench in Mun Mun Mun Munshi Ram’s case (supra) shi Ram’s case (supra) shi Ram’s case (supra) shi Ram’s case (supra) have been extended to the State of Haryana. We fail to understand the import of the instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent. We are LPA No. 1476 of 2011 (O&M) 4 in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the appellant like the Union of India cannot be so hapless that a writ petition was required to be filed for protection of the protected monuments. In any case, the instant appeal is without any substance and does not deserve admission as directions have already been issued. 4. In view of the above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDE GURDE GURDE GURDEV SINGH V SINGH V SINGH V SINGH) August 1 August 1 August 1 August 19, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Pkapoor