VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2025 › High Court of Delhi

Mr Mirza Aurangzeb v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
19 February 2025
Bench
Tushar Rao Gedelaauthor
Case no.
W.P.(C) 2012/2025

Judgment

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J FEBRUARY 19, 2025/MJ

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 19th February, 2025 % W.P.(C) 2012/2025 & CM APPL. 9474/2025 MR MIRZA AURANGZEB .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manu Mridul, Mr. Sumit Mamgain and Mr. Pratap Singh Rawat, Advocates. versus ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA & ORS......Respondents Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr. Abhinav Bhardwaj, Advocates for R- 1 and 3/UOI. Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC with Ms. Rajbala and Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Ajay Arorra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nitish Dubey and Mr. Aarush Kapoor, Advocates for R-5. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. (ORAL) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records available before us on this petition. 2. The proceedings of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted ostensibly in public interest with the prayer to remove and demolish ongoing and completed alleged illegal and unauthorized constructions within the regulated area of Ajmeri Gate, which is said to have been raised in violation of the provisions of The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1958'). 3. Prayer clause of the writ petition is extracted herein under:- "(i) Direct the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 to identify and disclose the ongoing or completed illegal and unauthorized constructions, within the regulated area of the Ajmeri Gate in violation of the AMASR Act, 1958. (ii) Direct the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 to take immediate action for removal and demolish of ongoing or completed illegal and unauthorized constructions made and raised in the regulated area in violation of the AMASR Act, 1958; (iii) Direct the Respondent No. 2 to take action on the complaints being made by the Petitioner and other persons objectively and effectively without demur; (iv) Direct the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 to take immediate steps to remove and demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction undertaken by the Respondent No. 5 and other owners of properties in the regulated area of Ajmeri Gate Bazar; (v) Pass such order or further orders, as this Hon"ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 4. Though, apparently the petitioner has sought a prayer for issuance of appropriate directions to the authorities concerned to remove alleged unauthorized constructions in the regulated area of Ajmeri Gate, however, a careful examination of the prayer clause coupled with the averments made in the writ petition would reveal that the petition is directed against the alleged illegal constructions raised by respondent no.5. 5. The background facts and attending circumstances which can be gathered from a perusal of the averments made in this petition reveal that the instant petition has been filed not in public interest but to serve certain individual purposes and that the petition appears to have been filed at the behest of certain individuals, having some or the other dispute with respondent no.5 and the petitioner appears to have only lent his name for instituting the proceedings of the petition. 6. Our conclusion in this regard is based on the following facts:- (a) It has been averred by the petitioner in the petition that since the concerned authorities did not take any action against the alleged illegal construction said to have been raised by respondent no.5, others in the vicinity are emboldened in raising illegal constructions with impunity without any regard to the authority of law. (b) It has also been averred by the petitioner that respondent no.5 is the owner of certain properties on which illegal constructions have been allegedly raised by him adding 2nd and 3rd floor which falls within the regulated area under the Act, 1958. The petitioner thereafter, enlists such properties owned by respondent no.5 as Shop Nos. 140 to 142 and

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.