Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) Date: 09-07-2018 These two Letters Patent Appeals are arising out of a common judgment dated 12.02.2016 passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Patna High Court LPA No.714 of 2016 dt.09-07-2018 3 Case No.4514 of 2013 and Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8341 of 2013.

2. The writ petitioners-appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the learned Writ Court whereby and whereunder the learned Writ Court has rejected the contention of the petitioners that action taken by the State-respondents in the matter of issuance of the notifications under Section 3(1) of the Bihar Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Site, Remains and Art Treasure Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in October, 1993 and the subsequent notifications declaring the Qila and the surrounding areas as protected monument or archaeological site without acquiring the land in question in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and without paying compensation thereof to the land owners like the petitioners is per-se illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. This contention of the petitioners has been rejected by the learned Writ Court after taking note of the relevant provisions of the Act such as Sections 3, 12, 18, 19 and 25 which have been quoted in the impugned judgment for a ready reference.

4. The protected area has been defined under Clause (j) of Section 2 of the Act, which reads as under:-

"protected area" means any archaeological site and remains which is declared to be a protected area by or under this Act."

5. The learned Writ Court found that purpose for imposition of certain conditions regarding restricted use of land is obvious from the aim and object of the Act as it is for preservation of ancient monument and archaeological sites and remains. The submission of learned counsel representing the petitioners that if the Patna High Court LPA No.714 of 2016 dt.09-07-2018 5 lands of the petitioners are required to be declared as protected sites then the State government should necessarily acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act in the interest of public purposes has been rejected by the learned Writ Court.

16. So far as the impugned judgment of the learned Writ Court is concerned, we find that the learned Writ Court is absolutely correct in appreciating the various provisions of the Act whereunder with aim and object to preserve the ancient monument and protected area as defined under the 'Act' the State Government Patna High Court LPA No.714 of 2016 dt.09-07-2018 12 has been empowered to impose certain restrictions on the uses of the land. Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act clearly mandates that only agricultural activities in the given manner may be permitted. The submission of the petitioners-appellants that if the State Government is developing a garden over the land in question then the government is required to acquire the land in question first and pay compensation to the petitioners cannot be accepted at this stage when the very right, title and possession of the petitioners- appellants have been seriously questioned by the State Government and those are matters pending for adjudication in the civil suit.