Ghanshyam Bhati v. 1. Union Of lndia

5. Sanjay Kumar Bhati, S/o.Ram Vallabh Bhati, Occ Business, Rlo.15-6-214, 6. Sanjay Kumar Bhati, S/o.Ram Valtabh Bhati, Occ Business, Rio.15-6-2'14, 7. Hasthimal Bhati, S/o.Sri Shiva Karan Bhati, Occ Business, R/o.15-6-214, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. Begum Bazar' Hyderabad ...RES'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 4 in not including the Building premises No.15-6-214 to 220, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, in the list of protected monumenUheritage buildings prepared under the provisions of Ancient Monuments and Archeological sites & Remains Act, '1958 and/or Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority Zoning Regulations, 1981, as illegal and arbitrary and further direct the Respondents to include and protect the same. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 14938 OF 2014) Petition under Section '15't CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to initiate steps to examine as to whether the building premises No. 15-6-214 to 220, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, can be treated as a protected monument under the provisions of Ancient Monuments & Archeological sites & Remains Act, 1958 and or a heritage building under the Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority Zoning Regulations, 1981, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel fior the Petrioner: Ms. SRAVANI FOR SRI C.RAGHU Counsel.for the Respondent No.1: DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI V.NARSIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 TO 7: - The Court made the following: ORDER .1 - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMT NARAYAIVA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.11869 of 2OL4 ORDER: This writ petition is fiied declaring the action of respondents 1 to 4 in not including the building premises No.15-6-2 14 to 22O, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, (for short 'subject property') in the list of protected monument/heritage buildings prepared under the provisions of Ancient Monuments & Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and f or Bhagranagar Urban Development Authority Zoning Regulations, 1981, as illegal and arbitraqz.

2. Heard Ms.Sravani, learned counsel representing Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner on record, Sri V.Narsimha Gound, learned Standing Counsel for 3.d respondent (HMDA) and Sri M.Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 (GHMC).

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is a tenant and running a Kirana & General Merchants business in premises bearing No.15-6-2 19, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, which is part of the subject propert5r, for more than 3O years. She submits that the subject properQr has 7 ,] got historical importance, as the late Dr.Zakir Hussain, former President of India, was born in the said premises and lived there for a period of B years; and that earlier a popular Urdu Daily 'Siasat' and The Hindu' newspaper have also published detailed articles with regard to the historical value and architectural importance of the building. She would further submit that respondents 5 and 6 who are the owners of the said building are trying to demolish the said building on the pretext that the same is in dilapidated condition. She also I submits that Sri Md.Moazam Khan, MLA of Bahadurpura constituency had addressed a letter to various authorities requesting to declare the said building as heritage building, but the respondent authorities have not taken aly action. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is hled.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for 3.d respondent (HMDA), referring to the counter liled by i-i.d respolldent would submit tha-t the petitiruer is a te+rnt of the sl:b;ect property and not the ovrter. 'l'Il,:iefore, t-h. : rretii ioner has io locus standi to file the present writ petition seeking to decla:'e the subject property as heritage cuilding and he cannot cs1-^roulie the cause of the owners of the subject property. Learned Standing Counsel has I l 3 drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in the counter at paras 5 and 7 wherein it is stated that the official respondent No.4 has inspected the subject property which is on the back side of the Osmania General Hospital and consists of ground + upper floor and the upper floor is in dilapidated condition; that the premises is being used for commercial activities; and that the premises in question is not having aly architectural or cultural value to be notified as a heritage building. It is further averred that regulation 13 of the Hyderabad Ufban Development Authority Zoning Regulations, 1981, would apply to those buildings, artifacts, structures and/or precincts of historical and/or aesthetical and/or architectural and/or cultural value, which would be listed in the notifrcation to be issued by the Government; that in the present case the State Government has not issued any notilication notifying the premises in question as a heritage building; and fina1ly, prayed to dismiss the writ petltipl as the present writ petition is fi[ed by. !he, pllitioner dF * oblique motive to remain in the building as a tenant.

5. Before adverting tb the merits of the case, it is appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Ancient Monumentg .1 and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act, 1958).

6. Section 3 4 and 4-A of the Act, 1958 contemplates procedure for declaring any building as al arcient monument of national importance.

7. As per Section 3 of the Act, 1958, all ancient and historical monuments and all archaeological sites and remajns which have been declared by the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act, 1951 (71 of 1951), or by section 126 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956), to be of national importance sha-ll be deemed to be ancient and historical monuments or archaeological sites and remains declared to be of national importance for the purposes of this Act. B. As per Seclion 4 of the Act, 1958, Central Government by way of notification in the ofl-rcial gazette, include any building by giving two months notice of its intention to declare such ancient monument or archaeological site and remains to be of national importance; and that as per Section aQ) of the Act, .) 1958 any person interested may submit objections to the said declaration within two months a-fter the issuance of the notification.

9. As per Section 4 A (21 of the Act, 1958 the Central Government shall on the recommendation of the authority, classify all the ancient monuments or archaeological sites and remains declared as of national importance under Sections 3 and 4.

10. As per Section 2-(dal of the Act, 1958, the 'Authority' means the National Monuments Authority constituted under Section 20-F.

11. As per Section 2 (db) of the Act, 1958, the'competent authority' means an oflicer not below the rank of Director of Archaeolory or Commissioner of Archaeolory of the Central or State Goveinment or equivalent rank, specified, by notification in the official gazette, as the competent authority by the Central government to perform functions under this Act.

12. A perusal of above provisions of the Act, 1958, makes it clear that the Central Government on its own or on the rec0rnmendation of authority can declare a monument as 6 Ancient Monument which has got historical, archaeological or artifact importance.

13. In the present case, a perusal of record wouid disclose that except alleging that Dr.Zakir Hussain, former President of India, lived in the said property, no material is placed on record to substantiate the said claim. Further, the petitioner has not placed any material as to the historica-l value or architectural importance of the subject properlr. Furthermore, the petitioner is a tenant ald not the owner of the subject property and has failed to satisfy this Court as to his locus standi to lile the present writ petition to include the subject property in the list of protected monuments/hdritage buildings.

14. As mentioned supra, as per the scheme provided under the Act, 1958, Central Government on its own or on the recommendation of authority can declare a monument as Ancient Monument which has got historical, archaeologica,l or artifact importance. The Act, 1958 does not provide for any other mecharism or procedure to declare a building/monument as anclent monument. ---7' ,/' 7

15. In view of the above discussion, the wdt petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaleous petitions pending, if any, sha1l stand closed. SD/. S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

1. One CC to SRI C.RAGHU, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI V.NARSIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One CC to DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies PSK PSK ,10 _-- I HIGH COURT DATED:1010912025 ORDER WP.No.11869 of 2014 \J () O t * 1Hr.) 0 2 [il] 2i17fi i' { * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITITOUT COSTS ,':>.-0 'tt *> tagt"! zo\'l>u