Case: Sakkubai and others Vs. State of Karnataka &amp; Ors.

and not obstruct it. 22. In the present case, since it is established that the structures erected by the Appellants were in violation of the 1961 Act, given the common thread underlying the 1961 Act and the Hampi Act, it cannot be said that such illegality ceased to exist when the Hampi Act came into force. Thus, the HWHAMA was, and is entitled to proceed against the development raised by the Appellants, which had been rendered illegal under the prior legislation. 23. It may also be useful to appreciate the background in which the HWHAMA had proceeded to take action against the Appellants. As mentioned supra, the Hampi World Heritage properties had been included in the in danger list by UNESCO in 1999. However, owing to serious efforts by the State Government and the HWHAMA, this classification was dropped in 2006. The threat to the various monuments and the integrity of the landscape of Hampi, however, continued. This is well reflected in the resolution of the 33rd meeting of the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO in 2009, wherein rampant illegal constructions in the village of Virupapura Gaddi, found a specific mention: …The World Heritage Committee, 1. xxx 2. xxx 3. xxx 4. xxx 5. xxx 6. xxx 7. Expresses its concern over illegal constructions and other developments, such as social housing projects, within the extended boundaries which are being considered for the possible extension of the property, particularly in Virupapura Gada island and Hampi villlages, which appear to have a negative impact on the integrity of the landscape…. Similar concerns were also raised at the 34th meeting of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in 2010. 24. It was in the context of these developments that the HWHAMA had directed the local authorities to not renew the trade licenses issued to the Appellants, and later proceeded to issue notices for demolishing the constructions raised by the Appellants. In view of the broad ranging functions envisaged for the HWHAMA under Section 11 of the Hampi Act, we find that its actions were lawful, as it was incumbent upon the authority to act and not turn a blind eye to the illegality being perpetrated by the Appellants. 25. Finally, we advert to the claim of the Appellants that the lack of a notification under Section 14(1) of the Hampi Act fettered the powers of the HWHAMA to take action against them. It may be useful to refer to Section 14 in this regard: Section 14: No other authority or person to undertake development without permission of the Authority.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, except with the previous permission of the Authority, no other authority or person shall undertake any development within the Heritage Area, of the types as the Authority may from time to time specify by notification published in the Official Gazette. (2) No local authority shall grant permission for any development referred to in sub-section (1), within the Heritage Area, unless the Authority has granted permission for such development. (3) Any authority or person desiring to undertake development referred to in sub-section (1) shall apply in writing to the Authority for permission to undertake such development. (4) The Authority may, after making such inquiry as it deems necessary grant such permission without or with such conditions, as it may deem fit, to impose or refuse to grant such permission. (5) Any authority or person aggrieved by the decision of the Authority under sub-section (4) may, within thirty days from the date of the decision appeal against such decision to the State Government, whose decision thereon shall be final: Provided that, where the aggrieved authority submitting such appeal is under the administrative control of the Central Government, the appeal shall be decided by the State Government, after consultation with the Central Government. (6) In case any person or authority does anything contrary to the decision given under sub-section (4) as modified in sub-section (5), the Authority shall have power to pull down, demolish or remove any development under taken contrary to such decision and recover the cost of such pulling down, demolition or removal from the person or authority concerned. Evidently, under Section 14(1), the HWHAMA is made the sole authority for undertaking development in the heritage area of such types as it may specify by a notification. 25.1 Though the Appellants have contended that such a notification under Section 14(1) is a pre-condition for the HWHAMA to exercise its powers to order demolition under Section 14(6), we are not inclined to accept such an argument. In view of the co-terminus legislative scheme of the 1961 Act and the Hampi Act, we find that Section 14 of the Hampi Act acts as an overarching provision that enables the issuance of a further notification to control development in the Hampi heritage area. This, however, does not mean that the lack of a notification under Section 14(1) renders a prior notification intended for the same purpose unenforceable, as is the case with the 1988 notification here. 25.2 In any case, we find that the notification dated 10.07.2008 regarding the implementation of the Master Plan 2021 and the Zonal Regulations fulfils the requirement of Section 14(1) in the present case, as they clearly specify the restrictions as to land use and the prohibited types of development. Thus, the Appellants cannot use the absence of regulation of Virupapura Gaddi as a ground to justify the illegal construction on their land. 26. In light of the foregoing discussion, we conclude that the construction of rooms, thatched roof huts, temporary structures, and buildings by the Appellants to carry on the business of hotels, restaurants, or guesthouses in Virupapura Gaddi was in violation of the 1961 Act. Further, it is held that the HWHAMA had the authority to proceed with the demolition of such illegal constructions. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned final judgment and order dated 27.04.2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]10.2 From the above, it is clear that though the petition challenging the Hampi Act was filed in the year 2011, the same has not been pursued by the Appellant before the High Court. Be that as it may, nothing has been placed on record by the Appellants to show that operation of the 1988 notification or the Hampi Act has been stayed. In the absence of any such interim order staying the operation of the said notification or the Hampi Act, it is not open for the Appellants to use the same to argue for a deferral of the hearing of the instant appeals till the disposal of W.P. Nos. 65940-65949 of 2011 by the High Court. Accordingly, we reject the prayer made by the Appellants for deferring the matter till the disposal of the writ petitions pending before the High Court13. In the instant case, exercising its powers under Section 19(3) of the 1961 Act, the State Government issued the 1988 notification declaring certain areas specified in the Schedule thereto as protected areas. From a perusal of this Schedule, it is amply clear that Virupapura Gaddi had been indicated in Column 5 as a covered area. Further, Map A which is annexed to this Schedule also makes it evident that the entire village of Virupapura Gaddi was included within the boundaries of the protected areas. In fact, the specific Survey Nos. of lands where the Appellants are carrying on their restaurants and guesthouses are also mentioned in this Map. Thus, there is no doubt that the 1988 notification clearly indicates the entire village of Virupapura Gaddi as a protected zone14. As to whether the entire village could be declared as protected area by the 1988 notification, we do not find merit in the Appellants argument that a notification under Section 19 of the 1961 Act only contemplates protection for archaeological site and remains that are linked to the existence of monuments14.1 In our opinion, the 1961 Act makes two distinct categories for protected monuments (see Sections 3 to 18) and protected areas (see Section 19 onwards). While the former relates to ancient monuments, the latter relates to archaeological site and remains. Upon a close reading of the 1961 Act, we find that there is nothing in the definitions under Sections 2(1) and 2(3) or otherwise under the scheme of the 1961 Act, that indicates a link between the existence of archaeological site and remains and ancient monuments. It cannot be said that the protection ascribed to archaeological site and remains must necessarily depend on the existence of a monument. It is possible for certain areas to be protected independent of the existence of monuments, if there is a reasonable belief that they contain ruins or relics of historical or archaeological importance [see Section 2(3) supra]14.2 In light of this, when we look to the village of Virupapura Gaddi specifically, there appears to be sufficient material to establish its archaeological significance14.3 From these observations by the ASI, a specialized body responsible for archaeological research and conservation of cultural monuments in India, there remains little doubt as to the historical importance of Virupapura Gaddi. It appears that the Government had considered the comprehensive geographical entity of the area, including attributes like its landscape, prehistoric vestiges and water systems. Thus, the 1988 notification issued under Section 19(3) of the 1961 Act declaring Virupapura Gaddi as a protected area cannot be said to be without basis. Further, Section 19(4) of the 1961 Act clarifies that the notification issued under Section 19(3) conclusively establishes the status of Virupapura Gaddi as protected area under the said ActFrom a reading of sub-section (1) of Section 20, it is evident that owners/occupiers of protected areas cannot construct any building or utilize such areas in any manner other than cultivation, without the permission of the State Government16. Here, since the entire area comprising Virupapura Gaddi had been declared as protected area vide the 1988 notification, it follows that the land owned by the Appellants could have only been used for the purpose of cultivation after the issuance of such notification. However, as mentioned supra, the Appellants had constructed huts and buildings on their lands for the commercial purpose of running hotels, restaurants, and guest houses. Clearly then, these constructions were in violation of Section 20(1) of the 1961 Act17. Furthermore, the permissions/licenses obtained by the Appellants from the local panchayat were issued without any authority, as Section 20(1) of the 1961 Act makes the State Government the appropriate authority for granting permissions for non-cultivable use of protected areas. Thus, the licenses issued by the panchayat cannot but be said to be illegal18. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that by virtue of the 1988 notification declaring the entire village of Virupapura Gaddi as a protected area, the restrictions on construction and use under Section 20(1) came into operation with effect from 22.10.1988 itself. Thus, the construction carried out by the Appellants on their lands at Virupapura Gaddi for commercial purposes was in violation of the 1961 ActFrom the above, it is evident that the recognition of Hampi as a World Heritage site was a testament to its immense historical importance. It was also a crucial milestone in the efforts to preserve and protect the Hampi monuments, as it paved way for India to access the annual World Heritage Fund of US$ 4 million earmarked by the UNESCO for the upkeep of World Heritage sites20.3 Soon after such recognition, as the number of tourists visiting Hampi increased, concerns began being raised about uncontrolled construction, haphazard development, and other illegal activities carried out in the garb of catering to tourists. In light of these developments, the UNESCO classified the Hampi World Heritage properties as being in danger in 1999. This classification was significant inasmuch as it reflected the deteriorating condition of the area. Notably, the Hampi World Heritage properties continued to be classified as such till 200620.6 A close reading of the Preamble to the Hampi Act reveals an underlying common object between the 1961 Act and the Hampi Act– providing for the preservation of the respective monuments and areas protected under these legislations. The difference is that the 1961 Act was enacted as a broader legislation covering the entire State of Karnataka, while the Hampi Act was enacted with a specific focus on the heritage site of Hampi, keeping in mind the international recognition that had been accorded to it20.7 In addition to such common object, certain other provisions of the Hampi Act also indicate a continuity between the legal regimes of the 1961 Act and the Hampi Act. For instance, the Hampi Act directly incorporates the 1988 notification issued under Section 19(3) of the 1961 Act, while demarcating the Hampi heritage area in its ScheduleParts A, B, and C of Schedule I to the Hampi Act respectively indicate the extent of the core area zone, buffer zone and peripheral zone forming part of the Hampi heritage area. Under Part A, which indicates the extent of the core area zone, there is a clear reference to the area of 41.80 sq kms declared to be protected area under the 1988 notification20.8 Furthermore, even the applicable restrictions under the Master Plan 2021 prepared under the Hampi Act are similar to those imposed by virtue of the 1988 notification, inasmuch as no development of Virupapura Gaddi is permissible. The Master Plan 2021 came into force on 10.07.2008. It stipulates the formation of development schemes for towns and villages included within the Hampi local planning area. Though it did not provide for a specific development plan for Virupapura Gaddi, it provides Zonal Regulations for areas under special control, which include river islands, tank beds et alIn light of this, given that Virupapura Gaddi is a river island, it is evident that no development is permissible there even per the Master Plan 2021 prepared under the Hampi Act. When juxtaposed with the restrictions under Section 20(1) of the 1961 Act, this also indicates a continuity between the 1961 Act and the Hampi Act21. In view of the foregoing factors, we do not find merit in the Appellants argument that the Hampi Act is purely prospective in nature and that the HWHAMA, which has been established under such Act, cannot enforce prior notifications. In our considered opinion, the 1961 Act and the Hampi Act cannot be viewed as separate, watertight compartments that operate independent of each other. Such an understanding would not only defeat their underlying common objective, but also belie the events leading up to the enactment of the Hampi Act, all of which clearly reflect that the Hampi Act was a culmination of continuing attempts by the State Government to preserve and protect the cultural heritage of Hampi. Therefore, the 1961 Act and the Hampi Act must not be construed as isolated silos. Since they both seek to fulfill a common object, they must be interpreted in a manner that seeks to further such objective, and not obstruct it22. In the present case, since it is established that the structures erected by the Appellants were in violation of the 1961 Act, given the common thread underlying the 1961 Act and the Hampi Act, it cannot be said that such illegality ceased to exist when the Hampi Act came into force. Thus, the HWHAMA was, and is entitled to proceed against the development raised by the Appellants, which had been rendered illegal under the prior legislationAs mentioned supra, the Hampi World Heritage properties had been included in the in danger list by UNESCO in 1999. However, owing to serious efforts by the State Government and the HWHAMA, this classification was dropped in 2006. The threat to the various monuments and the integrity of the landscape of Hampi, however, continued. This is well reflected in the resolution of the 33rd meeting of the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO in 2009,In view of the broad ranging functions envisaged for the HWHAMA under Section 11 of the Hampi Act, we find that its actions were lawful, as it was incumbent upon the authority to act and not turn a blind eye to the illegality being perpetrated by the AppellantsEvidently, under Section 14(1), the HWHAMA is made the sole authority for undertaking development in the heritage area of such types as it may specify by a notification25.1 Though the Appellants have contended that such a notification under Section 14(1) is a pre-condition for the HWHAMA to exercise its powers to order demolition under Section 14(6), we are not inclined to accept such an argument. In view of the co-terminus legislative scheme of the 1961 Act and the Hampi Act, we find that Section 14 of the Hampi Act acts as an overarching provision that enables the issuance of a further notification to control development in the Hampi heritage area. This, however, does not mean that the lack of a notification under Section 14(1) renders a prior notification intended for the same purpose unenforceable, as is the case with the 1988 notification here25.2 In any case, we find that the notification dated 10.07.2008 regarding the implementation of the Master Plan 2021 and the Zonal Regulations fulfils the requirement of Section 14(1) in the present case, as they clearly specify the restrictions as to land use and the prohibited types of development. Thus, the Appellants cannot use the absence of regulation of Virupapura Gaddi as a ground to justify the illegal construction on their land26. In light of the foregoing discussion, we conclude that the construction of rooms, thatched roof huts, temporary structures, and buildings by the Appellants to carry on the business of hotels, restaurants, or guesthouses in Virupapura Gaddi was in violation of the 1961 Act. Further, it is held that the HWHAMA had the authority to proceed with the demolition of such illegal constructions. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned final judgment and order dated 27.04.2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka.