STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SRIKANTADATTA NARASIMHA RAJA WODEYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this batch of writ appeals, WA No. 5546/03 arises out of W. P. No. 34400/01, WA No. 5654/03 arises out of W. P. Nos. 25928-30/2001, WA. No. 5743/03 and WA. No. 5919/03 arise out of W. P. Nos. 27038-47/02. The first three appeals are by the State who were respondents in the respective Writ Petition while the fourth of the above noted appeal is by the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 in the Writ Petition noted above. The Writ Petitions in the sequence mentioned above are by Sri srikantadatta Narasimha Raja Wodeyar, who is the owner of the structure 'janana Mantapa', the owners of the godowns and buildings as well as vacant sites in the vicinity. The common grievance of all the petitioners is against the impugned notification declaring the 'janana Mantapa' as a protected monument, the surrounding area as protected area and also the consequential order of the Lokayuktha and endorsement of Municipal council since the same have effected the right to enjoyment of their respective property. Considering that on similar set of facts, common questions of law was to be considered, the learned Single Judge considered and disposed of the Writ Petitions by a common order dated 3. 6. 2003. Since the common order of the learned Single Judge is assailed in all these appeals, the same are considered and disposed of by us, by this common order.

(2.) THE brief facts are that, there is said to exist a birth pandal to commemorate the birth of Chamaraja Wodeyar IX in 1774 A. D. who is none other than the ancestor of the petitioner in W. P. No. 34400/01. The said structure is known as 'janana Mantapa' occupying an area of 35' x 29' and is situate within the limits of Chamarajanagar Town Municipal council. The Government of Karnataka exercising the power under Section 4 of the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological sites and Remains Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' for short)declared the said 'janana Mantapa' as a protected monument initially under a notification dated 15. 4. 1997, which was questioned before this court in W. P. No. 26503/1997. The learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 21. 7. 1999, quashed the notification and reserved the liberty to reconsider the same in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Government of Karnataka issued a nidification dated 10. 8. 2000 under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Subsequent thereto by notification dated 11. 6. 2001 under Section 4 (3) of the Act, declared the same to be a protected monument. As a consequence, notification dated 18. 6. 2001 was issued notifying an area measuring 100 + 200 = 300 meters surrounding the 'janana Mantapa' as prohibited and protected area suspending certain right of enjoyment of the property by several private owners of property in. the said area. As a sequel to the above, on certain complaints, the Lokayuktha by order dated 19. 4. 2002 directed the Commissioner, City Municipal Council against permitting constructions in the 'protected area' and in obedience, the endorsement dated 18. 5. 2002 was issued by the Municipal Council prohibiting construction. Therefore the above stated notifications, order and endorsement were assailed by the respective petitioners and by way of amendment the Act No. 7/1962 was sought to be struck down as being void and unconstitutional. The learned Single Judge though did not advert to the contention regarding the constitutional validity, has however accepted the contentions put forth on behalf of the petitioners and quashed the impugned notifications, order and endorsement which has resulted in these appeals.

(3.) SRI Basavaraj Kareddy, learned Government Advocate, while assailing the order dated 3. 6. 2003 passed in the Writ Petitions contended that the perusal of the order would indicate that the learned Single Judge has proceeded on a wrong basis since the question of the birth place not being of national importance cannot be the ground to quash the notification since the place need not be of national importance for declaring the same as protected monument under the Act since the object of the Act itself is for preservation of monuments which are ancient, historical etc. , but other than those declared to be of national importance by Central Act. It is contended that therefore even if the same is not of national importance, the same can be declared as protected monument if it satisfies the requirement of Section 2 (1) and (3) of the Act and if the procedure as contemplated under Section 4 is followed. According to the learned government Advocate, the Archaeological Survey report of 1912 and 1937 stands testimony to the fact of birth of Chama Raja Wodeyar IX in 1774 a. D. from the stone tablet and the paintings therein is also referred to. Thus it is historically, archaeologically and artistically important and is also ancient having been constructed in 1826. It is further contended, in that view the notification is in accordance with law. No doubt it is situated in private property but Section 13 of the Act provides for acquisition which is a subsequent procedure and as such the observation of the learned Single judge in that regard is not justified according to the learned Government advocate. Insofar as the challenge to the constitutional validity, it is submitted that the same has withstood the test of time and would not arise at this stage. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge has not adverted to the same and as such at best it can only be remitted for consideration if that arises. Sri Ashwathanarayana Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellants in the appeal filed by respondents Nos. 8 and 9 or the writ Petition, supported the contentions urged by the learned Government advocate.