N//s. Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director v. Kota Reddy, Having its registered office at Door No

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AVINASH DESAI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI CHALLA APOORVA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI B. NARASIMHA SARMA, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for Respondent No. 3: Ms. VANAJA REDDY, AGP FOR THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for Respondent No. 5: SRI L. RAVICHANDER, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI MAYUR MUNDRA The Court made thr: following: ORDER l THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA WRIT PETI TION No .9965 OF 2o21 Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Avinash Desai, Learned Senior Counsei representing Ms.Apoorva Reddy Counsel for the respondent Nos. l_and 2: Mr.B.Narasimha Sarma, leamed Additional Solicitor General of lndia. Counsel for the respondent No_3: Ms.Vanaja Reddy, learned Assista_nt covernmen t pleader represen r ing r he il"o.} ; " Counsel for the respondent No.5: Mr. L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Mayrr Mundra. ;.r";; ORDER:

1. The petitioner prays for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No.3/competent Authority of the National Monuments Authority, the Director, Heritage Telangana (Competent AuthorityJ in not issuing permission/ No Objection Certificate (.NOCJ to the petitioner pursuant to the recommendation of the respondent No.2 under the provisions of Thc Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, l95g (.the 195g ActJ for construction work in the land admeasuring Ac. 14_15.95 guntas in Sy.Nos.2SO, 2St, 252p, 253 and 255 of euilamohammed Nagar Village, Golconda, Hyderabad (.subject land), as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner a_lso seeks a direction on the respondent No.3/Competent Authority to issue the permission/NOC in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the 195g Act. I I 2 IIB'J w.P-No.9965 oJ 2O21 The petitioner is in the business of real estate development a1d 2. construction and claims to enjoy substantial amount of goodwill in completing several projects in the State of Telangana' The petitioner claims to have an understanding with the owners of the subject land for obtaining the required permissions for carrying out development of the said land including construction thereon' The subject land abuts the outer wall of the Golconda Fort which is a declared National Monument by the Department of Culture' Government of India' Any construction in and around the National Monument is subject to the provisions of the 1958 Act and the Rules framed thereunder' The subject land includes prohibited and regulated areas as dehned under sections 2(ha) and 2(1) of the 1958 Act' respectively'

3. The petitioner applied for permission to construct only in the regrrlated area of the Golconda Fort i'e'' beginning from the limit of a distance of 20O meters in ali prohibited area and extending to directions. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner clarifies 4. that the permission sought for construction relates only to the regulated area and not the prohibited area' This is an undisputed position and also appears from the documents on record' Counsel places relevalt documents including the letter of the respondent No.2/NationaiMonumentsAuthority(.NMAJ,dated29.o4.2019issued under section 2OD(3) of the 1958 Act intimating the respondent 3 MB,J W.P.No.996S ol2O27 No.3/Competent Authority of the approval granted by the former to the application submitted by the petitioner. Counsel a.lso places a subsequent letter of the NMA d,ated 24.02.2019 issued to the respondent No.3 approving the revised drawings with certain conditions. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has already complied with these conditions and is ready to comply with further conditions as set by the respondent No.2.

5. The learned Additional Soiicitor General appearing for the respondent No.2/NMA submits that the respondent No.2 has granted permission to the petitioner by way of the letter dated 29.o4.2o19 and a further approval on 24.02.2019 where it was specifically stated that the respondent No.3/Competent Authority is required to communicate the decision to the petitioner within 1 month from the receipt of the letter. The learned Additional Solicitor General submits that the respondent No.2/NMA does not have any further obligations after granting permission to the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid letters.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/Competent Authority refers to the Minutes of the 307n Meeting dated 1g.06.2021 and expresses a doubt as to whether these Minutes were communicated to the respondent No.3. counsel submits that the respondent No.3 will take necessary steps pursuant to the Minutes dated 18.O6.2021. This submission was recorded by the Court in the order dated 27 .O2.2025. I 4 MB'J W-P.No.9965 of 2O27

7. karned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No'5 submits that the respondent No'5 protects National Monuments from encroachments and illegal constructions- Counsel submits that the respondent No.S has already filed a Public Interest Litigation ('PIL') and the same is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court which is pending adjudication and that the present Writ Petition should be tagged with the said PIL' Senior Counsel submits that the respondent No.4 passed away during the pendency of the proceedings. In the context of the above submissions and before dealing with 8. the merits of the case, it is important to refer to an order dated

03.03.2025 of the Division Bench - I of this Court presided over by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice whereby the application filed by the respondent No.5 to tag the present Writ Petition to the PIL was dismissed. g. After hearing learned Senior Counsel, the learned Additional Solicitor General and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, it is undisputed that the respondent No.2/NMA has already granted approval to the petitioner's application for permission/NOC by way of the letter d.ated 29.04.2019. The said letter .unequivocally states that recommendation of the NMA was accorded in its 223'a Meeting held on 15fr and 16ft of April, 2079 for grant of NOC for the proposed construction of residential houses in the subject land in the 5 MB,J w.P.No.9965 oJ 2O2t "Regulated Area" of the Golconda Fort. The retter further states that the recommendation and grant of permission by the respondent No.3/competent Authority is subject to the terms and conditions of the recommendations. The respondent No.2/NMA addressed a letter to the respondent No.3 on 24.O2.2019 imposing several conditions in terms of the proposed construction by the petitioner. This letter also directed the respondent No.3/Competent Authority to communicate the decision of the respondent No.2/NMA to the petitioner within 1 month from the date of receipt of the letter. Admittedly, the petitioner has complied with these conditions and/or undertakes to comply with the conditions as may further be imposed.

10. Apart from the stated position of the respondent No.3/Competent Authority that the respondent No.3 will abide by the decision taken by the respondent No.2/NMA in its meeting held on 18.06.2021 which was duly communicated to the respondent No.3. The special enactment favours the case of the petitioner.

11. Section 2OD provides for grant of permission by the Competent Authority for the regulated area as provided under section 208 of the 1958 Act. Section 2OD of the 1958 Act sripulares that the recommendation of the NMA shall be final. Further, section 2OD(4) casts an obligation on the Competent Authority to act as recommended by the NMA within 1 month from the receipt of the \ l I I I i I I 6 MB,J W.I'.No.9965 of 2O2t tntimation under section 2OD(3). The relevant sections are set out below for easy reference: _?9?^S.:", of permission by comperent authority within regu Iated area. (3)The Authority shall, within two months from the date of receipt of application ""0.. ""U_"..tio., iZ), intimate to the competent authority i-p."t of construction (including the impact oi large_scale "u"i, devetopment project, public project and project essential to the public). (4)TI-e compelent authority shall, within one month o[ I h.? receipt of intimal ion from the Authority under sub-section f3r, either grant permission oi refuse the same as so recommended by the Authority. (s) The recommendations of the Authority shall be

72. In the context of the above provisions, once approval is granted No.3/ Competent by the respondent No.2/NMA, the respondent Authority has nr'l option but to communiiate the decision of the respondent No.2/NMA on the application of the petitioner within I month from the date of receipt of the decision by the respondent No.2. In the present case, the respondent No.3/Competent Authority does have any explanation satisfactory or othenvise, in failing to communicate the respondent No.2,s approval to the petitioner under section 2oD$) of the 19sg Act within the stipulated timeframe. Therefore, the respondent No.3 has acted in violation of the statutory mandate which contemplates that the decision of the respondent No.2 I Y 7 MB,J W.P-No-9965 oJ 2O2t shall be Iinal and binding under section 20D(5) of rhe 1958 Act. The petitioner has sufficient grounds to be aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent No.3 and is justified in filing the present Writ petition.

13. it is evident that the respondent No.3/Competent Authority has sat on the recommendation of the respondent No.2/NMA beyond the stipulated timeframe of I month. This is an admitted position as recorded by this Court in the order dated,2l.O2.2O25.

14. The respondent No.S has taken objection.to the relief being granted in the Writ petition on the ground that the letter. dated 29.04.2019 issued by the respondent No.2/NMA was issued only on the basis of a NOC dated O9.O6.20O8 issued by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASIJ and the same was set_aside by the Delhi High Court in EMCA Construction Co. Thr. M.p. Gupta Vs. Archaeological surueg of Ind-iqt. The respondent No.S also contends that the permission carnot be granted to the petitioner by reason that the euli Qutub Shahi Tombs which is a Heritage Monument is situated in the vicinity.

15. First, the respondent No.S has not demonstrated its locus in seeking to restrain the respondent Nos.2/NMA and the respondent No.3/ Competent Authority from following_up with the permission by the respondent No.2/NMA to the petitioner,s the regulated area. It is undisputed that the construction in already granted t 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3467 8 IB,J w.P.No.9965 of 2O21 permission was granted under the provisions of The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958' Therefore, intervention of the respondent No-s is against the statutory provisions and in negation of the 1958 Act.

16. The issue of the respondent No.S filing the PIL is an independent cause of action which by itself cannot prevent the petitioner from ventilating its grievance from the present writ Petition. Even otherwise, the letter issued by the NMA on 29 'O4 '2019 makes it clear that the permission was not only granted on the basis of the NOC of the ASI dated o9.06.2OO8 but also on the comments ;f the Competent Authority and other factors. The letter d,ated 29-04'2019 itself makes the permission subject to certain conditions which the petitioner agreed to comply with. There is no dispute with regard to the issue of the petitioner's compliance with the conditions imposed by the respondent No.2/NMA.

17. Second, the respondent No.S failed to disclose the fact that the Government of Telangana had constituted a 3 Member Committee on 06.12.2019 at the request of the respondent No.3/Competent Authority pursuant to which the respondent No.3 informed the Government on 31.72.2019 that permission would have to be granted to the petitioner in accordance with the 1958 Act. The 3 Member Committee made its recommendation for making site visits to the subject land abutting the Golconda Fort. Admittedly, the petitioner is I Y 9 w.e.No.eeas oSffil willing to abide by the conditions stipurated in the letter dated 31.12.2019. The letter records that the recommendation of the respondent No.2/NMA has been submitted to the Govemment of Telangana and assures the Department of Heritage, Government of Telangana protecting, maintaining and conserving the Heritage of Telangana including the Golconda Fort under the provisions of The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 19Sg.

18. The matter pending before the Delhi High Court in EMCA Construction (supra) pertains to illegal permissions granted by the ASI in the prohibited area and not in the regulated area as defined under the 1958 Act. As staterl above, the subject land is in the regulated area as opposed to the prohibited area as defined under the 1958 Act. Therefore, the proceedings before the Delhi High Court would have no bearing to the facts of the present case.

19. Third, the euli eutub Shahi Tombs is a State _ protected Monument i.e., under the Government of Telangana and falls under The Telangana Heritage (protection, preservation, ConservaLion and Maintenance) Act,2orz. The Gorconda Fort, on the other hand, is a National Monument which comes within the purview of the 195g Act. In any case, the permission granted by the respondent No.2/NMA is and the follow-up action of the respondent No.3/Competent Authority are only the hrst steps in the long-drawn process for the petitioner to commence any form of construction on the subject land. \ 10 MB,J W.P.No.9965 ol2O21

20. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the respondent No.5 is creating obstacles which is contrary to the provisions of the 1958 Act and particularly section 2OD(4) thereof which requires the Competent Authority to grant permission within 1 month from the receipt of the intimation from the Authority under section 2OD(3)- The "Authorit/ means the National Monuments Authority as dehned under section 2(d)(a) of the 1958 Act.

21. To repeat, the respondent No.2/NMA had already granted permission by its letter dated, 29.O4.2OL9. Hence, the respondent No.3/Competent Authority was to act on such permission within 1 month from the receipt of the same under section 20D(4) of the 1958 Act. The approval granted by the respondent No.2/NMA in April, 2019 finds specific reiteration in the Minutes of 3o7ft Meeting of the NMA held on 18.06.2021 where the respondent No.2/NMA also took exception to the respondent No.3/Competent Authority ignoring the recommendation contrary to section 2OD(4) and (5) of the 1958 Act.

22. In view ol the above discussion and the specific stand taken by the respondent No.3/Competent Authority that it shall abide by the decision taken by the respondent No.2/NMA, the respondent No.3/Competent Authority has no other option but to follow-through witJl the permission granted by the respondent No.2/NMA. In fact, the follow-through action is only a ministerial act which the Y' To, 1 2 J 4 5 t) 7 8 IUBC BS i1 ,IB,.I W.P.No.9965 o.f 2O21 respondent No.3/Competent Authority must take in consonance with the timeline provided under section 2OD$) of the 1958 Act.

23. W.P.No.9965 of 2027 is accordingly allowed and disposed of by directing the respondent No.3/Competent Authority to issue the NOC/permission in favour of the petitioner within 4 weeks from the date of this order. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD E UTY REGISTRAR t, CTION OFFICER ThenSecretary, Ir,4inistry of Culture, Government of lndia, shastri Bhavan. New The [t/ember Secretary. National lVlonument Authoritv. ;cd"]ffi;iJrjlo'#'i+lYirak Road, New Derhi _1ido#ini.t,v rne uompetent Authoritv of the Natio,,''ar rvl0numents Authority, The Director, 6 u iro'no rv''Abid'' - - "'- " ffi':?ff #'?3P"il1 f "-'s6t,;it Qne QC to Sri Cha-lla Apoorva Reddy.Advocate [OpUC] one cc to Sri B Narasimha Sr;;'A,i;iri";i6;ti;; Generat (opuc) Two CCs to the Advocate General, iiigh a;u.'rJiii"""Strtu of ie)anganl. 9n" 99 t_o Srr Mayur Mundra, Advocate(OpUC) Two CD Copies {n- I tl ;i te ra ;s; ;; or culture. " I-IIIGH COURT DATED: 2110312025 ORDER WP.No.9965 ot 2021 s{4I€ 'A. o L) ?7 fltAfi ?0fi a ) o,- qnaTc9 (f\ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0{.*"t I I