Case: Joseph Pothen Vs. State of Kerala

the Central Act LXXI of 1951. The State Act, therefore, survived even after the passing of the said Central Act. 9. The next Central Act is the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (Act XXIV of 1958). It repealed the Central Act LXXI of 1951. Under S. 3 thereof all ancient, and historical monuments declared by Central Act No. LXXI of 1951 to be of national importance should be deemed to be ancient and historical monuments and remained declared to be of national importance for the purpose of the said Act. Section 4 thereof enabled the Central Government to issue a notice of its intention to declare any other monument to be of national importance which did not come under S. 3 of the said Act. But the Central Government did not give any notice of its intention to declare the monument in question as one of national importance. If so, that Act also did not replace the State Act in regard to the monument in question. 10. For the aforesaid reasons it must be held that notwithstanding the extension of the Central Act VII of 1904 to the Travancore area and the passing of Central Acts LXXI of 1951 and XXIV of 1958, the State Act continued to hold the field in respect of the monument in question. It follows that the notification issued under the State Act was valid. 11. The next argument of the learned counsel may be briefly stated thus: The disputed wall is not an ancient monument, but an archaeological site or remains; the said matter as covered by Entry 40 of the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution; when Act VII of 1904 was extended by Part B State (Laws) Act III of 1951 to the Travancore area, it occupied practically the entire field covered by the State Act and, therefore, the latter Act was impliedly repealed by the former Act. 12. Assuming that that is the legal position, we find it not possible to hold that the Fort wall is not an ancient monument but only an archaeological site or remains. The argument of the learned counsel is built upon the definition of "ancient monument" in the State Act (Regulation 1 of 1112 M. E.) and that in the Central Act of 1904. It is not necessary to express our opinion on the question whether the definition is comprehensive enough to take in an archaeological site or remains, and whether the Acts apply to both ancient monuments strictly so called and to archaeological site or remains. If the definition was wide enough to cover both - on which we do not express any opinion-the State Act may be liable to attack on the ground that it, in so far as it deals with archaeological site or remains, was displaced by the Central Act. But the State Government only purported to notify the Fort wall as an ancient monument and, therefore, if the State Act, in so far as it dealt with monuments is good, as we have held it to be, the impugned notification was validly issued thereunder. 13. The Constitution itself, as we have noticed earlier, maintains a clear distinction between ancient monuments and archaeological site or remains; the former is put in the State List and the latter, in the Concurrent List. 14. The dictionary meaning of the two expressions also brings out the distinction between the two concepts, "Monument" is derived from monere which means to remind, to warn. "Monument" means, among others, "a structure surviving from a former period"; whereas "archaeology" is the scientific study of the life and culture of ancient peoples. Archaeological site or remains, therefore, is a site or remains which could be explored in order to study the life and culture of the ancient peoples. The two expressions, therefore, bear different meanings. Though the demarcating line may be thin in a rare case, the distinction is clear. 15. The entire record placed before us discloses that the State proceeded on the basis that the Fort wall was a monument; the notification dated October 3, 1963, issued by the State Government described the wall as a protected monument. The petitioner questioned the notification on the ground that it was not a monument but a part of the boundary wall of his property. He did not make any allegation in the petition filed in the High Court that it was an archaeological site or remains and, therefore, the Central Act displaced the State Act. Nor did he argue before the High Court to that effect. In the petition filed in this Court he questioned the constitutional validity of the State Act only on the ground that the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, impliedly repealed the State Act relating to monuments. He did not allege that the Fort wall was an archaeological site or remains and, therefore, the State Act as well as the notification were invalid. The present argument is only an afterthought. 16. The extracts given in the counter-affidavit filed by the State from the relevant Manuals and other books and documents show that the Fort wall was a historical monument and was treated as such, being the wall built around the famous Sree Padmanabhaswami Temple. It is not an archaeological site for exploration and study, but an existing structure surviving from a former period. For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the Fort wall is a monument and the State Government was within its rights to issue the impugned notification under S. 3 of the State Regulation I of 1112 M.E. We are not deciding in this case whether the wall in dispute is part of the Fort wall. Such and other objections may be raised under the provisions of the Act in the manner prescribed thereunder. 17. In this view, it is not necessary to express our opinion on the question whether Art. 363 of the Constitution is a bar to the maintainability of the petition.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The petitioner filed O. P. No. 1502 of 1960 in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam for a relief similar to that now sought in this petition. The said petition came up before Vaidialingam, J., who dismissed that petition on the ground that it sought for the declaration of title to the property in question, that the said relief was foreign to the scope of the proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution and that claims based on title or possession could be more appropriately investigated in a civil suit. When an appeal was filed against that order, a Division Bench of the High Court, consisting of Raman Nair and Raghavan, JJ., dismissed the same, accepting the view of Vaidialingam, J., that the proper forum for the said relief was a civil Court. It is, therefore, clear that the Kerala High Court did not go into the merits of the petitioners contentions, but dismissed the petition for the reason that the petitioner had an effective remedy by way of a suit. Every citizen whose fundamental right is infringed by the State has a fundamental right to approach this Court for enforcing his right. If by a final decision of a competent Court his title, to property has been negatived, he ceases to have the fundamental right in respect of that property and, therefore, he can no longer enforce it. In that context the doctrine of res judicata may be invoked. But where there is no such decision at all, there is no scope to call in its aid. We, therefore, reject this contentionIt is not possible, without further evidence, on the basis of the affidavits filed by the petitioner and the State to come to a definite conclusion whether the disputed part of the wall is a part of the historic Fort wall. We are, therefore, withholding our final decision on this point, as we are satisfied that the petitioner has purchased the disputed wall from the Maharaja and is in physical possession thereof. Indeed, the fact that he is in possession has been admitted by the State in its counter-affidavit. It is stated therein that the petitioner has "intermeddled" with the wall. The petitioner has possessory title in the wall and is, therefore, entitled to be protected against interference with that right without the sanction of lawThat Act applied to ancient and historical monuments referred to or specified in Part I of the Schedule thereto which had been declared to be of national importance. In Part I of the Schedule to the said Act certain monuments in the District of Trichur in the Travancore-Cochin State were specified. The monument in question was not included in the said Schedule. The result is that the State Act did not in any way come into conflict with the Central Act LXXI of 1951. The State Act, therefore, survived even after the passing of the said Central Act9. The next Central Act is the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (Act XXIV of 1958). It repealed the Central Act LXXI of 1951. Under S. 3 thereof all ancient, and historical monuments declared by Central Act No. LXXI of 1951 to be of national importance should be deemed to be ancient and historical monuments and remained declared to be of national importance for the purpose of the said Act. Section 4 thereof enabled the Central Government to issue a notice of its intention to declare any other monument to be of national importance which did not come under S. 3 of the said Act. But the Central Government did not give any notice of its intention to declare the monument in question as one of national importance. If so, that Act also did not replace the State Act in regard to the monument in question10. For the aforesaid reasons it must be held that notwithstanding the extension of the Central Act VII of 1904 to the Travancore area and the passing of Central Acts LXXI of 1951 and XXIV of 1958, the State Act continued to hold the field in respect of the monument in question. It follows that the notification issued under the State Act was valid12. Assuming that that is the legal position, we find it not possible to hold that the Fort wall is not an ancient monument but only an archaeological site or remains. The argument of the learned counsel is built upon the definition of "ancient monument" in the State Act (Regulation 1 of 1112 M. E.) and that in the Central Act of 1904. It is not necessary to express our opinion on the question whether the definition is comprehensive enough to take in an archaeological site or remains, and whether the Acts apply to both ancient monuments strictly so called and to archaeological site or remains. If the definition was wide enough to cover both - on which we do not express any opinion-the State Act may be liable to attack on the ground that it, in so far as it deals with archaeological site or remains, was displaced by the Central Act. But the State Government only purported to notify the Fort wall as an ancient monument and, therefore, if the State Act, in so far as it dealt with monuments is good, as we have held it to be, the impugned notification was validly issued thereunder13. The Constitution itself, as we have noticed earlier, maintains a clear distinction between ancient monuments and archaeological site or remains; the former is put in the State List and the latter, in the Concurrent List14. The dictionary meaning of the two expressions also brings out the distinction between the two concepts, "Monument" is derived from monere which means to remind, to warn. "Monument" means, among others, "a structure surviving from a former period"; whereas "archaeology" is the scientific study of the life and culture of ancient peoples. Archaeological site or remains, therefore, is a site or remains which could be explored in order to study the life and culture of the ancient peoples. The two expressions, therefore, bear different meanings. Though the demarcating line may be thin in a rare case, the distinction is clear15. The entire record placed before us discloses that the State proceeded on the basis that the Fort wall was a monument; the notification dated October 3, 1963, issued by the State Government described the wall as a protected monument. The petitioner questioned the notification on the ground that it was not a monument but a part of the boundary wall of his property. He did not make any allegation in the petition filed in the High Court that it was an archaeological site or remains and, therefore, the Central Act displaced the State Act. Nor did he argue before the High Court to that effect. In the petition filed in this Court he questioned the constitutional validity of the State Act only on the ground thatthe Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, impliedly repealed the State Act relating to monuments. He did not allege that the Fort wall was an archaeological site or remains and, therefore, the State Act as well as the notification were invalid. The present argument is only an afterthought16. The extracts given in the counter-affidavit filed by the State from the relevant Manuals and other books and documents show that the Fort wall was a historical monument and was treated as such, being the wall built around the famous Sree Padmanabhaswami Temple. It is not an archaeological site for exploration and study, but an existing structure surviving from a former period. For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the Fort wall is a monument and the State Government was within its rights to issue the impugned notification under S. 3 of the State Regulation I of 1112 M.E. We are not deciding in this case whether the wall in dispute is part of the Fort wall. Such and other objections may be raised under the provisions of the Act in the manner prescribed thereunder17. In this view, it is not necessary to express our opinion on the question whether Art. 363 of the Constitution is a bar to the maintainability of the petition.