UTPAL KUMAR SARKAR Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed challenging the order and/or notices dated 27.10.1999, 23.11.1999, 21.12.1999 and 28.2.2000, being Annexures P-7, P-8, P-9 and P-10 respectively, the show cause notice dated 24.7.2000, being annexure P-11, the order dated 6.11.2000 being Annexure P-17 to the writ petition whereby the respondents have, amongst others, directed to stop construction of the first floor of the hotel which has been allegedly illegally erected at the site since it falls within 100 meters from protected limits and further beyond it upto 200 meters near or adjoining protected Monuments as these are declared areas under the notification No. 1764 dated 16th June, 1992 (for short "the notification") published in the Gazette of India dated 4th July, 1992.

(2.) The facts as contended are that the land in question was purchased for starting a hotel in Murshidabad. Plans were submitted with the Murshidabad Municipal authorities (for short "the Municipality"). The Municipality by letter dated 7th September, 1992 granted sanction to the plan for the construction of three-storied commercial building with certain conditions. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Murshidabad granted certificate of mutation in favour of the petitioner. General Manager, District Industries Centre, Murshidabad examined the scheme and certified that the said scheme of establishing a hotel was technically feasible and economically viable. The plot in question was validly converted from agricultural to non-agricultural land. Taxes were deposited with the Municipality and the construction started. Thereafter, on 21.12.1999 the respondent No.9 issued a notice to stop construction on the ground that it was being made within the prohibited area of Hazarduari Palace at Murshidabad in violation of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites Remains Act, 1958 (for short "the 1958 Act") and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 (for short "the 1959 Rules"). It is the case of the petitioner that prior to such notification, there was no notice from the Archaeological Department and the construction of ground floor and the first floor of the building was completed by the second week of December, 1999 on the basis of the valid plan.

(3.) On 28.2 .2000 the respondent No. 1 issued a notice alleging that the erection of the hotel at the site was illegal since it was in violation of the 1958 Act. The petitioner was directed to refrain from carrying out such erection and to demolish the additional storey.