SHIV DARSHAN SINGH versus RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 153 · Decided: 09-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
153
SHIV DARSHAN SINGH
v.
RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 697 of 2017)
in
(Civil Appeal No. 2431 of 2006)
JULY 09, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Contempt of Court:
Civil contempt – Contempt petition – Alleging violation of
judgment dated 16.1.2012 passed by Supreme Court – Construction
of multi-storey building by respondent Nos.4 and 5 (builders) after
demolition of old structure on the subject land, pursuant to sanction
of plan by New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) –
Subsequently NDMC stopped the on-going construction work
directing to obtain requisite permission from Archaeological Survey
of India (ASI) as the subject plot being within 100 metres of ancient
monument Jantar Mantar, in view of Notification dated 5.5.1991,
was a prohibited and regulated area for the purpose of mining and
construction – Builders filed suit seeking injunction against NDMC
– Suit was decreed – Appeal before Division Bench of High Court –
Also a writ petition was filed in public interest for protection of the
monument Jantar Mantar – Division Bench of High Court dismissed
the suit, but while dealing with the writ petition directed the Central
Government to review the Notification dated 15.5.1991 to consider
whether the stipulation of 100 meters prescribed by the notification
had any scientific, pragmatic or logical basis – Appeal to Supreme
Court by ASI as well as the builder – Appeal of ASI was dismissed
by judgment/order dated 16.1.2012 – It was made clear in the
judgment that in future Central Government or Director General
not to take any action or pass any order u/ss.20A(3) and 20C –
After the judgment of Supreme Court, on the recommendations of
National Monument Authority, ASI gave permission for renovation
of the building in question which was later cancelled by ASI –
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 153
    153
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
However, subsequently ASI, revived the permission for renovation
– This gave rise to suit against the builders seeking permanent
injunction and to writ petition by the owner of the property
(petitioner) – Suit as well as petition are pending – Contempt petition
before Supreme Court alleging non-compliance of its order dated
16.1.2012 – Local inspection of the site conducted on the direction
of Supreme Court – Held: On the date when the matter was
considered and judgment was delivered, as per the spot panchnama
dated 7.5.2003, the builders had completed the ground floor plus
four upper floors including two levels of basement and only finishing
work was yet to be completed – Supreme Court had passed no specific
direction as to the status of structure or that the structure was to be
pulled down or not – In the inspection held, after the contempt
petition was filed, no vertical or horizontal expansion of the building
was found as against what obtained in the year 2003 and only
finishing work was completed – The permissions granted for
renovation was also revoked even before filing of contempt petition
– Therefore, it cannot be said that the authorities were in violation
of the orders passed by Supreme Court – Hence the contempt petition
is closed.
Closing the Contempt Petition, the Court
HELD: 1. On the date when the matter was considered
and the Judgment was delivered by this Court, the structure as
indicated in the Spot Panchnama dated 07.05.2003 was in
existence.  In the local inspection held on 07.05.2003 it was found
that Respondents 4 and 5 had structurally completed the ground
floor plus four upper floors including two levels of basement
having height of 61 ft and 6 inches from the ground level to the
terrace level of the 4th floor.  However, the finishing work in the
lower basement, upper basement, ground floor, first, second, third
and fourth floors as well as terrace was yet to be completed.
Though the challenge raised by Respondents 4 and 5 was
negatived in the Judgment, no specific direction was passed as
to the status of structure that was in existence on the date of the
Judgment and whether that structure be pulled down or not.
[Para 17] [178-F-H; 179-A]
2.  As evident from the affidavit of the Chief Architect of
NDMC and the inspection held on 09.10.2018, though there was
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
155
no vertical or horizontal expansion of the building as against what
obtained in the year 2003, the building was found to be habitable
in the inspection held on 09.10.2018

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