New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning alleged illegal and unauthorized construction within the regulated area of the protected monument, Ajmeri Gate. The plea also highlighted significant violations of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, and the Municipal building bylaws.
The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the PIL was misconceived and motivated, noting that the petitioners failed to demonstrate their bona fide interest in the matter and that the plea was filed against the PlL rules.
In response to the court's query about the petitioner's actions during the construction of the building, the petitioner stated that they made several complaints to the relevant authorities and also filed a Right to Information (RTI) request regarding the matter.
The plea moved by Mirza Aurangzeb, who claims to be a local resident, stresses the importance of the Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
This Act aims to protect and preserve ancient monuments, archaeological sites, and remains of national importance, preventing any unauthorized and illegal construction within prohibited and regulated areas as stated under Sections 19 and 20B of the Act.
It also stated that, according to Section 20D of the Act, it is imperative to obtain prior permission or a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the competent authority before commencing any construction activity within the regulated area.
However, in this case, the perpetrators, being occupiers and owners of the buildings, have been found guilty of violating these provisions, along with municipal bylaws. They have undertaken and completed the construction right under the noses of the respondent authorities. Despite the offending property being booked by the department of Respondent- MCD, no action or demolition process has been taken to date, and the offending properties continue to stand unabated, plea read.
Disclaimer: This is a syndicated feed. The article is not edited by the FPJ editorial team.
