Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It is also stated by the plaintiffs that vide Notification dated 16th June, 1992, an area extending upto 100 meters from limits of a nationally protected Monument has been declared to be a Prohibited Area and a further area upto 300 meters have been declared to be a Regulated Area by the Archaeological Survey of India. All 12 properties of the said colony i.e. Padmini enclave fall within the prohibited Area of 14th Century, nationally Protected Monument of "Idgah". The only Authority to grant permissions for carrying out any construction activity in the Prohibited or Regulated area of a nationally Protected Monument is defendant No. 5 as per the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites And Remains Act, 1958 as amended (hereinafter referred to as the "AMASR Act").

20. It has been stated that the concerns raised by the plaintiffs are beyond the scope of jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiffs by way of the present suit are trying to interfere into the scope of ASI which is not permitted under the AMASR Act. In case of objection regarding the permission granted by the ASI, plaintiffs have to approach the concerned authority under the AMASR Act only and not this Court as Section 20-O of the AMASR Act clearly bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in entertaining any matter or granting injunction in respect of which Authority is empowered. Section 20-O reads as under :

25. It is stated that since the execution of the said Lease Deed is for the purpose of running Ayurvedic Nursing Home, defendant No.1 has only carried out requisite repair and renovation work in the suit property as is permitted under the building bye-laws of Delhi. It is denied that any misuse of the suit property has been carried out by the defendant No.1 or the activity carried out by the defendant No.1 is contrary to the terms and conditions of the AMASR (Amendment and Revalidation) 2010, or AMASR Rules, 1959 as amended or the DMC Act or the DMC Rules, 1958 or the MPD-2021 and so far no illegal commercial activity in suit property has been carried out by the defendant No.1. The repair work carried out by the defendant No.1 in the suit property have no any adverse environmental impact or result in congestion, increased traffic, lack of parking or increased pressure of civic amenities. It would not damage the residential character of the Padmini Enclave colony and its neighbourhood or any public nuisance is likely to be caused. The user permitted by MCD vide its letter dated 31st December, 2013 is as per the terms of MPD-2021 and MCD bye-laws.

38. The proposed repairs and renovation work could not have been commenced by defendant No. 1 without prior compliance with the requirement to secure the requisite sanctions as per the relevant provisions of the DMC Act 1957 and the MPD 2021. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 hence are liable to be prosecuted as per the relevant provisions including Section 30 A of the AMASR Act, 1958 read with AMASR Rules 1959 as the repairs and renovation including construction work had commenced prior to the securing of the above referenced Conditional Permission dated 25th June, 2014 from the Competent Authority - ASI. The work already carried-out till date cannot be said to be in consonance with the said Conditional Permission.