This petition challenged the shifting of a school from a protected historical monument to remove encroachment. The court held that the shift was necessary to comply with a division bench mandate and dismissed the petition.
Petition dismissed; the remaining matter was disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No. 6764 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 6764 of 2010 Date of decision 3.11.2011
Payal Division Welfare Association and Shopkeeper Association, Payal
. Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others. .. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rupinder Singh Khosla, Sr. Addl. AG Punjab
M.M.KUMAR, Acg.CJ.
“(i) the Archeological Survey of India, Chandigarh Circle, Chandigarh shall send detailed particulars, including the area of
CWP No. 6764 of 2010
2
the land underneath an ancient/protected monument to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector of the district concerned where such monument is located in the State of Punjab and Haryana within a period of one month, if not sent already; (ii) the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector of the district shall obtain a report from the revenue authorities regarding the encroachment, if any, made over the property of the ancient/protected monument within a period of one month from the date intimation regarding such ancient/protected monument is received from the Archeological Survey of India, Chandigarh Circle, Chandigarh and shall send a copy of the report to the Archeological Survey of India, Chandigarh Circle, Chandigarh; (iii) it shall be the duty of the Archeological Survey of India, Chandigarh Circle, Chandigarh and also of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector of the district concerned to get the ancient/protected monument or the property attached thereto retrieved from the encroachers in accordance with law. Wherever such an encroacher has got an injunction order from the civil court, the Archeological Survey of India as well as the Collector shall produce a copy of this order before the civil court to enable it to pass an appropriate order which may not be inconsistent with the directions issued hereinabove. The court concerned shall also be requested for early disposal of the pending suit/appeal, as the case may be;
(iv) the Archeological Survey of India shall ensure that all the ancient or protected monuments are maintained, preserved,
CWP No. 6764 of 2010
3
repaired or renovated periodically and the duty, if any, cast upon the Collector of a district in this regard under the 1958 Act shall be performed by him with or without any request from the Archeological Survey of India;
(v) after removal of all encroachments from the ancient or protected monuments and/or their repair/renovations, a compliance report along with photographs of each of the said monuments shall be submitted to the Registry of this Court. The entire exercise, however, shall have to be carried out before 30.9.2009, failing which, besides suo moto , any public spirited person shall also be competent to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the erring Collector or the authorities of the Archeological Survey of India, Chandigarh Circle, Chandigarh;
(vi) the Archeological Survey of India, Chandigarh Circle, Chandigarh, with the assistance of the District Administration concerned, shall further ensure that no part of the ancient or protected monument in possession of the encroachers or otherwise is damaged, defaced, altered or impaired, till such encroachments are removed.”
CWP No. 6764 of 2010
4
Historical Monuments and Archaeology Site and Remains Act, 1958 of the Central Government. It has also remained undisputed that the Government Senior Secondary School was housed in the Qila and being run from there. It was virtually encroachment of a protected monument which was declared as such under the 1964 Act. The directions issued by the Division Bench were also binding. Accordingly the respondents in compliance with the directions issued by this Court have shifted the school in question to Government Senior Secondary School, Payal on 19.4.2010 (R.4).
dismissed.
(M.M.Kumar) Acting Chief Justice
3.11.2011
(Rajiv Narain Raina) Judge
okg
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Government Girls High School encroaching a protected monument required to be shifted to comply with a division bench mandate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Munshi Ram v. State of PunjabReferred¶15
Munshi Ram v. State of Punjab (CWP No. 17704 of 1997)
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶30
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Payal Division Welfare Association and Shopkeeper Association
State of Punjab
Rajiv Narain Raina
M.M. Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
