GIRDHAR MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, petitioner Girdhar Memorial Charitable Trust has challenged the notice issued by the respondents dated 16/05/2000 whereby the Ex-ruler Brij Raj Singh was asked to remove the construction work of wooden doors and plaster works etc. from Suraj Prole Gate inside the Jaisalmer Fort being violative of Sub-Section 19(i) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (for short 'Ancient Monument Act, 1958') and Sub-Rule 10(i) and 33 of the Ancient Monuments Rules, 1959.

(2.) It is submitted that the petitioner-Trust is a registered Trust duly settled by Late Maharawal Shri Raghunath Singhi of Jaisalmer who was the Ex-ruler of the State of Jaisalmer. As per the inventory prepared in terms of Article-XII of the Covenant, various properties in Jaisalmer Fort were given to Ex-ruler of Jaisalmer as personal properties which include the property known as "Suraj Prole". Thus, the said property was settled by Ex-ruler in the Trust formed in the name of Shri Girdhar Memorial Charitable Trust and the income and receipts of this property were to be used for religious and charitable purposes.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-Trust assails the notice impugned submitting that as per Section 19 of the Ancient Monuments Act, 1958, the construction of the doors and the repair works made cannot be said to be in violation thereof. It is his submission that the Fort, specially 'Suraj Prole' was in absolutely dilapidated condition and required repairs immediately. The Trust apprehended that if timely repair was not carried on, the building structure may collapse which would have resulted into great damage to the historical ancient monument whereupon immediate steps were taken to get the plaster work done for re- enforcement of the existing structure and prevent from further damage of the historical ancient monument. The Trust also put wooden doors to stop entry of the stray cattle in the open space who would have caused damage to the property. There was no structural change made in the property and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners had constructed any building within the protected area as per Section 19(i) of the Ancient Monuments Act, 1958. It is submitted that a reply in this regard was sent to the authorities whereafter the authorities of the respondents visited on 02/06/2000 and informed that the reply was not found to be satisfactory and directed for removing the plaster work and wooden doors. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved of the action and the notice dated 16/05/2000 the present writ petition was filed. It is his submission that the action taken by the respondents goes beyond the powers under the Ancient Monuments Act, 1958 as there is no construction made. For the purpose of protection of the ancient monument which forms the personal property of the petitioner Trust, it was essential to conduct repair works. The construction of the door was also for the said purpose and, therefore, the notice impugned dated 16/05/2000 was arbitrary and liable to be quashed.