MADHU SUDAN PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, said to be the public spirited citizens and particularly keen on the betterment of the city of Bikaner, have filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioners submit that there is situated an ancient city-wall surrounding the city of Bikaner that was declared as protected monument by a notification issued on 30.04.1984 by the Art and Culture Department of the State of Rajasthan under Section 3(4) of the Rajasthan Monuments, Archaeological Sites & Antiquities Act, 1961 (the Act of 1961) but then, by the impugned notification dated 27.05.2003, the aforesaid notification dated 30.04.1984 was sought to be amended and the city-wall was sought to be taken out of the purview of protection. This, according to the petitioners, has been contrary to the requirements of the Act of 1961 and has been in colourable exercise of powers. The petitioners further state that the respondent Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner (UIT) intend to sell a part of the land adjoining the city-wall by making allotments of shops under the impugned auction notice dated 17.01.2003 (Annex.5). Such an act, the petitioners contend, would not only damage the heritage monument but would also reduce the width of the road known as Rajiv Marg that was laid for the purpose of dealing with traffic congestion; and this reduction of road-width is not permissible and is against public interest. The respondent UIT has filed a reply to the writ petition denying specifically the allegations about reduction of the road-width and, while stating that the apprehension of the petitioners is foundationless, has reiterated in the reply several times that the road-width is not going to be reduced. The respondent UIT states,-

(2.) The width of the road will not be reduced from 40 ft., which was originally marked by the Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner. At some places, the width of the road is more than 40 ft. so, the apprehension of the petitioners that by auctioning the plots for construction of shops, the width of the road will be reduced is only apprehension and this apprehension is not based on any foundation.

(3.) In the original plan, the width of the road is 40 ft. and that shall be remaining intact after auction of the plots. The Trust right from very beginning has made the plan that the width of the road will not be reduced from 40 ft. In regard to the city-wall, it is submitted by the answering respondent that major portion thereof has already been encroached upon and houses have been constructed thereat; and now there remains in existence only about 5% part of the said wall. It is, however, submitted that the area for shops proposed to be auctioned has been demarcated leaving 1 ft. space after the city-wall; and such shops shall only protect the wall.