3 days ago
Bombay HC grants interim protection from demolition to over 200 people residing in vicinity of Malegaon fort
The Bombay High Court on Friday granted interim protection from demolition to over 200 people residing near the vicinity of a fort, an archeological site at Malegaon in Nashik district, who were sent eviction notices by the tehsildar.
The HC granted interim protection from coercive action to the petitioners pending their plea challenging the government resolution seeking eviction of people residing near the site. The court also asked the state government's lawyer Kavita N Solunke to file an affidavit in reply to the plea.
A vacation bench of Justices Gauri V Godse and Somasekhar Sundaresan was on May 30 hearing a plea by Mohammad Rajjab Khan Mohammad Khan and Shakeel Ahmed Mohammad Israil, residents of Killa (fort) area at Raviwar Ward in Malegaon, who claimed to have filed it on behalf of themselves and over 200 other residents, challenging fresh eviction notice, apprehending demolition.
The petitioners, through advocate Manisha Desai, claimed while a gymkhana and a school are already running inside the archeological site, no action has been taken against them. However, arbitrary action has been initiated only against the occupants who are outside the archaeological site. She submitted that the petitioners were informed by the tehsildar that a fresh order for eviction and demolition had been issued against them.
The petitioners whose residential structures are on land belonging to the Nashik district Collector claimed the houses have been existing for over 40 years.
The petitioners claimed that after they learnt from a news report that the encroachments in the fort will be removed, they came to know from the Collector's office that the state culture and tourism department on January 20 had under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules 1959 had issued a Government Resolution (GR).
The GR ordered demolition of unauthorised structures on 47 forts protected by the central government and 62 protected by the archeological department, across the state. A committee headed by the Collector was to be constituted and submit a report, and between February and May this year, the encroachments were to be demolished.
The petitioners were informed that their structures are also liable to be removed, after which they approached the HC challenging it.
The vacation bench noted that on May 8, a coordinate bench, while hearing another plea relating to similarly placed over 100 petitioners, had directed that no coercive measures be taken against their structures and if at all it is to be taken, due procedure of law by issuing showcause notice be followed and same interim protection from eviction and demolition to those petitioners was extended through May 29 order.
On May 30, the bench noted that facts of the present case are similar to facts of the matter in which interim protection was already granted.
The court asked Solunke to take instructions about the same and said that the copy of fresh order of eviction be supplied to petitioners' lawyer.
