The Rajasthan High Court has underscored the importance of natural justice in cases involving demolition of constructions near protected monuments. While disposing of multiple writ petitions challenging demolition notices issued by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), the Court directed the competent authority to consider representations from affected parties within a strict 10-day timeline, ensuring compliance with procedural fairness. This order reinforces that even in matters of heritage protection, administrative actions must adhere to principles of natural justice and statutory timelines.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitions arose from a series of notices issued by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) between July 2024 and December 2024 to residents of Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, alleging encroachment in the vicinity of Chittorgarh Fort, a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act). The petitioners, including Nagendra Singh Rathore, Hitesh Tailor, Vijay Singh, Mukesh Neelmani, Yashwant Kumar, and Anandiram Khatik, challenged the notices on the grounds that they were issued without affording an opportunity of hearing, violating natural justice principles.
Key Facts
- Chittorgarh Fort is a centrally protected monument under the AMASR Act, 1958, and the National Monument Authority (NMA).
- The ASI issued notices dated 18.07.2024, 14.08.2024, and 02.12.2024 to multiple residents, directing them to demolish constructions alleged to be encroachments within the prohibited or regulated area around the fort.
- The petitioners claimed that their constructions existed prior to the demarcation of prohibited/regulated areas and that no prior notice or hearing was provided before issuing demolition orders.
- The petitioners relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated 28.04.2004 in Kila Nagrik Vikas Sansthan v. UOI & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3642/2003), which allegedly directed the ASI to follow due process before taking coercive action.
Procedural History
- Multiple writ petitions (SBCWP Nos. 13226/2026, 13237/2026, 13247/2026, 13249/2026, 13250/2026, 13251/2026, and 13269/2026) were filed before the Rajasthan High Court, challenging the impugned notices.
- 10.07.2026: Four petitions (13226/2026, 13247/2026, 13250/2026, and 13269/2026) were withdrawn by the petitioners with liberty to file representations before the competent authority.
- 10.07.2026: The remaining petitions (13237/2026, 13249/2026, and 13251/2026) were disposed of with directions to the ASI to consider representations within 10 days of submission.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought the following reliefs:
- Quashing of the impugned notices dated 18.07.2024, 14.08.2024, and 02.12.2024.
- Implementation of the 2004 Division Bench order in Kila Nagrik Vikas Sansthan, which allegedly mandated due process.
- Restraining the respondents from demolishing constructions without following natural justice.
- Any other appropriate relief deemed just by the Court.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Archaeological Survey of India could issue demolition notices for alleged encroachments near a protected monument without affording the affected parties an opportunity of hearing, and whether such actions violated principles of natural justice under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the AMASR Act, 1958.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- Violation of Natural Justice: The petitioners contended that the impugned notices were issued without prior notice or hearing, depriving them of an opportunity to present their case. They relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, which held that procedural fairness is a facet of Article 14.
- Precedent Reliance: The petitioners cited the 2004 Division Bench judgment in Kila Nagrik Vikas Sansthan, which allegedly directed the ASI to follow due process before taking coercive action.
- Existing Constructions: It was argued that the constructions existed prior to the demarcation of prohibited/regulated areas, and thus, the ASI’s action was arbitrary and disproportionate.
For the Respondents
- Statutory Compliance: The ASI, represented by Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG, submitted that the notices were issued in compliance with the AMASR Act, 1958 and the National Monument Authority (NMA) guidelines, which empower the ASI to take action against encroachments.
- Public Interest: It was contended that heritage protection outweighed individual interests, and the ASI’s actions were necessary to preserve the integrity of Chittorgarh Fort.
- No Objection to Representation: The ASG did not oppose the petitioners’ request to file representations, provided they were submitted within 3 days of the Court’s order.
The Court's Analysis
The Court did not delve into the merits of the encroachment allegations but focused on the procedural fairness of the ASI’s actions. Key observations included:
-
Natural Justice as a Constitutional Mandate: The Court reiterated that administrative actions, even in matters of heritage protection, must comply with principles of natural justice. It relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei, which held that fairness in decision-making is a constitutional requirement.
-
Opportunity of Hearing: The Court noted that the impugned notices did not provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, which was essential before taking coercive action like demolition. It emphasized that due process must be followed even when the authority acts under statutory powers.
-
Balancing Heritage Protection and Individual Rights: While acknowledging the importance of preserving protected monuments, the Court held that heritage protection cannot override constitutional guarantees. It directed the ASI to consider representations from the petitioners within 10 days, ensuring procedural fairness.
"The Archaeological Survey of India, while acting under the AMASR Act, 1958, must ensure that its actions do not violate principles of natural justice. Even in matters of public interest, such as heritage protection, the affected parties must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before any adverse action is taken."
The Verdict
The Court disposed of the writ petitions with the following directions:
- The petitioners in SBCWP Nos. 13237/2026, 13249/2026, and 13251/2026 were permitted to file representations before the competent authority (ASI) within 3 days of the order dated 09.07.2026.
- The ASI was directed to consider and decide the representations within 10 days of submission, strictly in accordance with law and principles of natural justice.
- Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
- Four petitions (13226/2026, 13247/2026, 13250/2026, and 13269/2026) were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file representations.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Natural Justice Is Non-Negotiable in Heritage Protection
- Administrative authorities, including the ASI and NMA, must afford an opportunity of hearing before issuing demolition notices or coercive orders under the AMASR Act, 1958. Failure to do so may render the action arbitrary and unconstitutional.
- Practitioners should argue that heritage protection laws cannot be used as a tool for summary eviction without due process. Cite this judgment to challenge ex parte orders by authorities.
Strict Timelines for Representations
- The Court’s direction to decide representations within 10 days sets a binding precedent for similar cases. Authorities must adhere to strict timelines when considering grievances, failing which writ remedies may lie.
- Affected parties should file representations promptly (within 3 days in this case) to trigger the 10-day decision timeline. Delays beyond this period may be challenged in contempt or writ proceedings.
Precedent Reliance in Heritage Disputes
- Lower courts and tribunals must follow Division Bench judgments of the High Court unless overruled by a higher court. In this case, the petitioners relied on the 2004 judgment in Kila Nagrik Vikas Sansthan, which allegedly mandated due process. Practitioners should dig out and cite relevant precedents to strengthen their case.
- Authorities cannot ignore judicial directions under the guise of statutory powers. Any deviation may be challenged as contempt of court.
Balancing Public Interest and Individual Rights
- Heritage protection is a legitimate public interest, but it cannot override constitutional rights. Courts will intervene if authorities act arbitrarily or without procedural fairness.
- Practitioners should argue that demolition or eviction orders must be proportionate and justified by evidence. Mere allegations of encroachment without due process may not suffice.
