Summary
The Supreme Court upheld demolition of unauthorised hotels, restaurants and guesthouses in Virupapura Gaddi. The 1988 protected-area notification covered the whole village; archaeological-area protection did not depend on an existing monument. Panchayat licences could not replace the required State permission. Reading the 1961 heritage legislation and the Hampi Act as a continuing conservation scheme, the Court held that the Hampi authority could act against the already illegal development.
Issues
- Whether the entire village was a protected area and the appellants’ commercial construction was lawful.
- Whether the Hampi authority could demolish construction already prohibited under the earlier statute without a fresh development notification.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(1), 2(3), 2(9) and 19, Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961Protected archaeological areas are distinct from protected monuments; the notification covered the village and the appellants’ lands. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3)
- Section 20, Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961Commercial construction in the protected area required State Government permission; local licences did not supply it. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Section 14, Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002Development-control powers were read with the continuing protected-area scheme and the notified Master Plan and Zonal Regulations. (¶¶ 25, 25.1, 25.2)
Held
- A pending challenge to the notification or the Hampi Act, without a stay of their operation, did not justify deferring these appeals. (¶¶ 10.1, 10.2)
- Protected areas can exist independently of monuments where the statutory archaeological criteria are met. The notification’s schedule and map covered the entire village, and archaeological material supported that protection. (¶¶ 13, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3)
- The restrictions operated from the 1988 notification. Commercial structures built subsequently without the required State permission violated Section 20; panchayat licences lacked authority to permit those uses. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- The two statutes furthered a common conservation purpose, and the Hampi Act incorporated the earlier protected area into its core zone. The later framework did not erase the pre-existing illegality or prevent the Hampi authority from taking action. (¶¶ 20.6, 20.7, 20.8, 21, 22, 24)
- Absence of a separate Section 14(1) notification did not invalidate enforcement of the earlier restrictions. In any event, the notified Master Plan and Zonal Regulations specified the land-use and development prohibitions and fulfilled the requirement here. (¶¶ 25.1, 25.2)
Result
Appeals dismissed; High Court judgment upheld. Respondents directed to proceed with demolition of the appellants’ illegal structures in Virupapura Gaddi within one month of the order.