Supreme Court Upholds Demolition of Illegal Structures in Hampi Protected Area: Sakkubai vs. State of Karnataka (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 11 February 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 143

Judges: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Can a local panchayat authorize construction in an area declared as protected by the State Government? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning structures built in Virupapura Gaddi, a site within the Hampi World Heritage area. The Court examined whether the Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority (HWHAMA) had the power to order the demolition of structures built without the necessary permissions.

The Supreme Court, in this judgment, upheld the High Court of Karnataka’s decision, ruling that the HWHAMA was within its rights to order the demolition of structures built in violation of the Mysore Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961. The bench comprised Justices Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy, with Justice Shantanagoudar authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the construction of hotels, restaurants, and guesthouses by the Appellants in Virupapura Gaddi, an islet near the Hampi World Heritage site. The Appellants claimed to have obtained licenses from the local village panchayat between 1990 and 2000. However, the Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority (HWHAMA), established under the Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002, directed the local authorities to stop renewing licenses and issued notices for demolition of the structures. The Appellants then filed writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka seeking a stay on the demolition.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The primary laws in question are:
✓ The Mysore Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 (the 1961 Act), which allows the State Government to declare ancient monuments and archaeological sites as ‘protected’.
✓ The Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002 (the Hampi Act), which established the HWHAMA to manage and conserve the Hampi World Heritage Area.

Key provisions of the 1961 Act include:
✓ Section 2(1) defines “ancient monument”.
✓ Section 2(3) defines “archaeological site and remains” as any area containing ruins or relics of historical or archaeological importance.
✓ Section 2(9) defines “protected area” as any archaeological site declared to be protected.
✓ Section 19 empowers the government to declare archaeological sites as protected areas.
✓ Section 20 restricts construction and land use in protected areas without government permission, allowing only cultivation that does not involve digging more than one foot of soil.

The Hampi Act aims to conserve the cultural heritage of Hampi and prevent uncontrolled development. It incorporates the 1988 notification by defining the protected area as the ‘core area zone’.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The Appellants argued that the entire village of Virupapura Gaddi could not be declared a ‘protected area’ under Section 19 of the 1961 Act, as it applies only to archaeological sites linked to monuments. They contended that since there were no monuments in Virupapura Gaddi, it could not be declared a protected area.
• They also argued that the HWHAMA did not have the authority to order demolition under the 1961 Act, as it was established under the Hampi Act. They claimed that only the Deputy Commissioner could order demolition under Section 20(2) of the 1961 Act.
• The Appellants further submitted that since the construction was carried out before the Hampi Act came into force, HWHAMA’s powers under Section 14 were not applicable.
• They highlighted a pending challenge to the 1988 notification in the High Court and requested a stay on the demolition until the High Court’s final decision.
• They argued that the High Court’s order was without reasons and proceeded on unsubstantiated assumptions, especially with respect to findings on illegality of conversion orders granted by the local authorities.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The Respondents contended that the entire village of Virupapura Gaddi was declared a ‘protected area’ by the 1988 notification. They referred to the Schedule and Map ‘A’ of the notification to support their claim.
• They argued that ‘protected areas’ are a separate category from ‘protected monuments’ under the 1961 Act. They submitted that areas can be protected based on a reasonable belief that they contain ruins or relics of historical or archaeological importance, even without monuments.
• They cited the archaeological significance of Virupapura Gaddi, as highlighted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
• They argued that the Hampi Act was introduced to further the objectives of the 1961 Act, and the HWHAMA had the authority to enforce the 1988 notification.
• They contended that Section 14 of the Hampi Act is an overarching provision and that the lack of a notification under Section 14(1) does not render the 1988 notification unenforceable.
• They argued that the restrictions on Virupapura Gaddi under the Hampi Act are co-terminus with the restrictions imposed on the area under the 1988 notification.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the construction raised by the Appellants was lawful under the 1961 Act, in light of the 1988 notification?
2. If not, whether the HWHAMA had the authority to demolish the said constructions?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The 1961 Act was the primary legislation, and the Court interpreted its provisions to determine the legality of the constructions.

✓ The Court emphasized that the 1988 notification under the 1961 Act conclusively established Virupapura Gaddi as a protected area.

✓ The Hampi Act was seen as a continuation of the 1961 Act’s objectives. The Court held that the HWHAMA had the authority to enforce the 1988 notification.

✓ The Master Plan 2021 was considered as a further restriction on development in eco-sensitive areas, supporting the HWHAMA’s actions.

✓ The UNESCO Convention was cited to emphasize the importance of preserving World Heritage sites, providing the context for the Hampi Act.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
✓ The 1988 notification clearly designated the entire village of Virupapura Gaddi as a protected area.
✓ The 1961 Act does not require a link between archaeological sites and the existence of monuments.
✓ The Hampi Act furthers the objectives of the 1961 Act and incorporates the 1988 notification.
✓ The HWHAMA was acting within its authority to protect the heritage area.
✓ The lack of a notification under Section 14(1) of the Hampi Act did not invalidate prior notifications.

The Court stated that the constructions by the Appellants were in violation of Section 20(1) of the 1961 Act, and the licenses obtained from the local panchayat were illegal.

The Court emphasized the importance of preserving the Hampi World Heritage site and the need to prevent illegal constructions. The Court noted the UNESCO’s concern over illegal constructions in Virupapura Gaddi.

The Court rejected the Appellants’ argument that the HWHAMA could not act against constructions carried out before the Hampi Act came into force, stating that the Hampi Act was a continuation of the 1961 Act’s objectives.

The Court concluded that the HWHAMA had the authority to order the demolition of the illegal structures.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“From a reading of sub-section (1) of Section 20, it is evident that owners/occupiers of protected areas cannot construct any building or utilize such areas in any manner other than cultivation , without the permission of the State Government.”

“In our considered opinion, the 1961 Act and the Hampi Act cannot be viewed as separate, watertight compartments that operate independent of each other. Such an understanding would not only defeat their underlying common objective, but also belie the events leading up to the enactment of the Hampi Act, all of which clearly reflect that the Hampi Act was a culmination of continuing attempts by the State Government to preserve and protect the cultural heritage of Hampi.”

“In the present 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.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to protect the Hampi World Heritage site and ensure compliance with the legal framework. The Court emphasized the following points:

• Historical and Archaeological Significance: The Court acknowledged the historical and archaeological importance of Virupapura Gaddi, as highlighted by the ASI. This was a key factor in justifying the declaration of the area as protected.
• Continuity of Legal Regimes: The Court viewed the Hampi Act as a continuation of the 1961 Act, emphasizing the common objective of preserving the heritage site. This allowed the HWHAMA to act against illegal constructions under the prior legislation.
• Enforcement of Legal Provisions: The Court stressed the need to enforce Section 20(1) of the 1961 Act, which restricts construction in protected areas without government permission.
• UNESCO’s Concerns: The Court considered UNESCO’s concerns over illegal constructions in Virupapura Gaddi, highlighting the international importance of the Hampi site.
• Public Interest: The Court prioritized the public interest in protecting the heritage site over the private interests of the Appellants.

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Was the construction lawful under the 1961 Act?

Issue 2: Did HWHAMA have the authority to demolish the constructions?

Key Takeaways

✓ The Supreme Court upheld the demolition of illegal structures in Virupapura Gaddi, emphasizing the need to protect heritage sites.

✓ The judgment clarifies that protected areas can be declared based on archaeological significance, even without the presence of monuments.

✓ The Hampi Act is seen as a continuation of the 1961 Act, allowing the HWHAMA to enforce prior notifications.

✓ Local authorities cannot grant permissions for construction in protected areas; only the State Government has the power.

✓ The ruling underscores the importance of international conventions like the UNESCO Convention in protecting heritage sites.

✓ The decision sets a precedent for the enforcement of heritage laws and the protection of cultural sites.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Respondents to proceed with the demolition of the illegal structures in Virupapura Gaddi within one month from the date of the order.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the HWHAMA has the authority to order the demolition of illegal structures in a protected area, even if those structures were built before the Hampi Act came into force. The Court clarified that the Hampi Act was a continuation of the 1961 Act’s objectives, and that the two acts must be interpreted in a manner that furthers the common goal of preserving the heritage site.

This judgment reinforces the principle that once an area is declared protected, any construction without the State Government’s permission is illegal. It also clarifies that the protection of heritage sites is a public interest issue and that authorities have the power to enforce the law to protect these sites.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sakkubai vs. State of Karnataka upholds the demolition of illegal structures in Virupapura Gaddi, reinforcing the importance of preserving heritage sites and adhering to legal frameworks. The Court clarified that the HWHAMA had the authority to enforce the 1988 notification and that the Hampi Act was a continuation of the 1961 Act. This judgment emphasizes the need for compliance with heritage laws and sets a precedent for the protection of cultural sites in India.

Category

Parent Category: Heritage Law

Child Category: Protected Areas

Parent Category: Environmental Law

Child Category: Conservation

Parent Category: Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961

Child Category: Section 19, Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961

Child Category: Section 20, Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961

Parent Category: Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002

Child Category: Section 11, Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002

Child Category: Section 14, Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Sakkubai vs. State of Karnataka case?

A: The main issue was whether the construction of hotels and guesthouses in Virupapura Gaddi, a protected area near Hampi, was legal and whether the HWHAMA had the authority to order their demolition.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court upheld the demolition of the illegal structures, ruling that the HWHAMA had the authority to do so.

Q: Can local panchayats authorize construction in protected areas?

A: No, local panchayats do not have the authority to authorize construction in protected areas. Only the State Government can grant such permissions.

Q: What is a “protected area” according to the 1961 Act?

A: A protected area is an archaeological site that has been declared to be protected by the government because it contains ruins or relics of historical or archaeological importance.

Q: Does the Hampi Act apply to constructions built before it came into force?

A: Yes, the HWHAMA can act against illegal constructions under the 1961 Act, even if those constructions were built before the Hampi Act came into force.

Q: What does this judgment mean for property owners in protected areas?

A: Property owners in protected areas cannot construct buildings or use their land for non-agricultural purposes without the State Government’s permission.

Q: Why is Hampi considered a World Heritage site?

A: Hampi is a World Heritage site because of its unique artistic creation, exceptional testimony to the Vijayanagara civilization, and outstanding example of a type of structure that illustrates a significant historical situation.