MANJUNATH Vs. CONSERVATION ASSISTANT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, BELAGAVI SUB-CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned notice bearing No.BLG/2018-19/AMSR/136 dated 26.10.2018 at Annexure-E and notice bearing No.BLG/32/02/18-2018-19-M/9149 dated 30.11.2018 /04.12.2018 at Annexuer-F, by which the respondents No.1 and 2 directed the petitioner to remove such unauthorized construction within seven days in exercise of their power under Rule 38 (1) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 (for short, 'the Rules').

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims that he is the owner of property measuring 21.9 feet x 25 feet of CTS No.4103/B situated at Bailhongal. It is stated that the said property was purchased by the father of the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 15.07.1983. In the year 2003, the petitioner states that he applied to the Town Municipal Council, Bailhongal for building license and accordingly, the Town Municipal Council, Bailhongal issued building license order on 05.08.2003 as per Annexure-C. It is stated that as per Annexure-C, the petitioner constructed the building on the above stated plot. As the petitioner intended to put up further construction on the above stated plot, he made an application to the respondents as per Annexure-D on 23.06.2018. The respondents under the impugned notices dated 26.10.2018 and 30.11.2018/04.12.2018 at Annexures-E and F in exercise of their power under Rule 38(1) of the Rules directed the petitioner to remove such unauthorized building construction within seven days stating that the plot of the petitioner is situated within the prohibited area of Centrally Protected Monument. Challenging those notices, the petitioner is before this Court in these writ petitions.

(3.) This Court by order dated 22.02.2019 directed the learned counsel, Sri.Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi to take notice on behalf of the respondents. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner impleaded Union of India as respondent No.3.