SAKKUBAI ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 763 · Decided: 11-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
763
SAKKUBAI ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1443-1456 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 11, 2020
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Mysore Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological
Sites and Remains Act, 1961 – ss. 19(1) & 19(3) – 1988 notification
declaring Virupapura Gaddi as ‘protected areas’ u/s. 19(3) of the
Act, 1961 – Validity of – Held: The Archaeological Survey of India
(ASI) had highlighted the archaeological importance of Virupapura
Gaddi in its Statement of objections filed before the High Court –
From the observations made by the ASI, a specialised body
responsible for archaeological research and conservation of cultural
monuments in India, there remains little doubt as to the historical
importance of Virupapura Gaddi – The Government had considered
the comprehensive geographical entity of the area, including
attributes like its landscape, prehistoric vestiges and water systems
– Thus, the 1988 notification issued u/s. 19(3) of the 1961 Act
declaring Virupapura Gaddi as a ‘protected area’ cannot be said
to be without basis – Further, s. 19(4) of the 1961 Act clarifies that
the notification issued u/s. 19(3) conclusively establishes the status
of Virupapura Gaddi as a protected area under the said Act.
Mysore Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological
Sites and Remains Act, 1961 – s.20(1) – Validity of construction
raised by the appellants under the 1961 Act – Held: The entire area
comprising Virupapura Gaddi, where constructions were raised by
the appellants, had been declared as protected area vide the 1988
notification, it follows that land owned by the Appellants could have
only been used for the purpose of cultivation after issuance of such
notification – However, the appellants had constructed huts and
buildings on their lands for the commercial purpose of running
hotels, restaurants and guest houses – From sub-section (1) of s.20,
it is evident that owners/occupiers of protected areas cannot
construct any building or utilize such areas in any manner other
 [2020] 2 S.C.R. 763
763
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
than cultivation, without the permission of the State Government –
These constructions, in the instant case, were in violation of s. 20(1)
of the 1961 Act.
Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002
– Mysore Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological
Sites and Remains Act, 1961 – Hampi World Heritage Area
Management Authority (HWHAMA) power to demolish illegal
constructions under the 2002 Act – Appellants contended that
HWHAMA, which is a body set up under the Hampi Act, could not
have issued such orders for demolition as the illegality of the
constructions was rooted in 1961 Act – Held: The State Government
enacted a specific legislation for the conservation of the cultural
heritage of Hampi, i.e. the Hampi Act – The HWHAMA was
constituted under s. 3 thereof – Both the 1961 Act and the Hampi
Act cannot be construed as isolated silos – They both seek to fulfil
a common object, they must be interpreted in a manner that seeks to
further such objective and not obstruct it – In the instant case,
since it is established that the structures erected by the appellants
were in violation of the 1961 Act, given the common thread
underlying the 1961 Act and the Hampi Act, it cannot be said that
such illegality ceased to exist when the Hampi Act came into force –
Thus, the HWHAMA was, and is entitled to proceed against the
development raised by the appellants, which had been rendered
illegal under the prior legislation i.e. 1961 Act.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Re: First Issue :
Whether the construction raised by the Appellants was
lawful under the 1961 Act, in light of the 1988 notification?
In the instant case, exercising its powers under Section
19(3) of the Mysore Ancient and Historical Monuments and
Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961, the State
Government issued the 1988 notification declaring certain areas
specified in the Schedule thereto as protected areas. From a
perusal of this Schedule, it is amply clear that “Virupapura Gaddi”
had been indicated in Column 5 as a covered area. Further, Map
‘A’ which is annexed to this Schedule also makes it evident that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
765
the entire village of Virupapura Gaddi was included within the
boundaries of the protected areas. In fact, the specific Survey
Nos. of lands where the Appellants are carrying on the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.