1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1443-1456  OF 2020 (@ Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.13714-13727 of

2015)

Sakkubai Etc. Etc. ….Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Karnataka & Ors. Etc. Etc. ….Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1457  OF 2020 (@ Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.15203 of 2015)

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1459 OF 2020 (@ Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.  4080  OF 2020)

(Arising out of Diary No. 1942 of 2018)

J  U D  G  M  E  N T

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

1.    Leave granted.  

2.    The  instant  appeals  arise  out  of  the  common  final

judgment  and  order  dated  27.04.2015  passed  by  the  High

2

Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in W.P.  Nos.  60278, 60279,

60280,  60304-60315 of  2011.  Vide the impugned order,  the

High Court dismissed the writ petitions seeking a direction to

the Respondent-authorities to restrain them from demolishing

the restaurants and guest houses run by the writ petitioners in

Virupapura Gaddi, Koppal district, Karnataka.       

3.    The background to this appeal is as follows:

3.1    With the object of ensuring the preservation of ancient

monuments  and  archaeological  sites  and  remains  in  the

erstwhile State of  Mysore,  the Mysore Ancient  and Historical

Monuments  and Archaeological  Sites and Remains  Act,  1961

(hereinafter  ‘the 1961 Act’)  was enacted.  Under this statute,

the  State  Government  was  accorded  the  power  to  declare

certain  ancient  monuments  as  ‘protected  monuments’  and

certain archaeological sites and remains as ‘protected areas’.

Accordingly, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 19(1) of

the  1961  Act,  the  State  Government  issued  a  (preliminary)

notification  on  19.05.1982  for  declaration  of  certain

archaeological  sites  and  remains  specified  in  the  schedule

thereto as ‘protected areas’.  Subsequently,  on 22.10.1988, a

(final) notification was issued under Section 19(3) of the 1961

3

Act  declaring  ten  villages,  including  Virupapura  Gaddi,  as

‘protected areas’ (hereinafter ‘the 1988 notification’).  

3.2        It is the case of the Appellants that they own land(s)

in Virupapura Gaddi, an oval islet formed by the Tungabhadra

river, located on the west of the Hampi World Heritage site. The

Appellants claim that during the period from 1990-2000, given

the  increasing  number  of  tourists  visiting  Virapupura  Gaddi,

they  obtained  hotel/restaurant  licenses  from  the  village

panchayat  to  cater  to  the  needs  of  the  tourists.  In  certain

instances,  they also obtained diversion orders from the local

authorities for changing the land use from agricultural to non-

agricultural,  so  that  they  could  run  hotels,  restaurants,  and

guest houses in their premises.

3.3       However, upon the introduction of the Hampi World

Heritage  Area  Management  Authority  Act,  2002  (hereinafter

‘the  Hampi  Act’),  the  authority  constituted  thereunder,  the

Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority (hereinafter

‘HWHAMA’), Respondent No. 4 herein, directed the panchayats

and local authorities not to renew any licenses and not to grant

permission for commercial activities within Virupapura Gaddi.

Later,  in  exercise  of  its  powers  under  the  Hampi  Act,  the

4

HWHAMA issued notices to the Appellants for demolishing the

structures constructed by them. To restrain them from doing

so,  the Appellants herein filed writ  petitions before the High

Court, seeking the identical relief of a direction to HWHAMA to

forbear from carrying out such demolition.   

3.4      Vide the impugned judgment dated 27.04.2015, the

High  Court  of  Karnataka  dismissed  these  writ  petitions.  The

High Court found that the 1988 notification declared the entire

village  of  Virupapura  Gaddi  as  protected  area.  As  a  result,

Section 20(1) of the 1961 Act came into operation, rendering

the  land  there  usable  for  the  purposes  of  cultivation  only,

unless  otherwise  approved  by  the  State  Government.  Thus,

given that the writ petitioners had constructed rooms, thatched

roof huts, temporary structures, and buildings to carry on the

business of hotels, restaurants, or guesthouses in Virupapura

Gaddi, it was held that such construction was in violation of the

1961 Act.  It  was also  observed that  the  panchayats  did  not

have any authority to accord sanction to the building plans, as

such power was solely vested with the State Government under

Section 20(1) of the 1961 Act. Furthermore, it was noted that

Virupapura Gaddi fell  in the ‘core zone’ of the heritage area

5

specified under the Hampi Act, and was therefore subject to the

authority of the HWHAMA. Hence, in light of the illegality of the

constructions under the 1988 notification, the HWHAMA could

demolish the structures erected by the Appellants. It is against

this  common  judgment  and  order  that  the  Appellants  have

come in appeal before this Court.  

4.         Heard learned Counsel for the parties.  

5.     Learned  Senior  Counsel  Mr.  Shekhar  Naphade,

representing  some of  the  Appellants, argued that  the  entire

village of Virupapura Gaddi cannot be construed as ‘protected

area’  under Section 19 of the 1961 Act.  This is because the

scope  of  this  provision  is  limited  to  archaeological  site  and

remains,  and  it  does  contemplate  the  declaration  of  entire

village(s)  as  protected  area(s).  Drawing our  attention  to  the

definitions  of  the  terms  “ancient  monuments”  and

“archaeological site and remains” under Sections 2(1) and 2(3)

of the 1961 Act respectively, he submitted that the two terms

should be read in conjunction with each other, such that the

conception  of  “archaeological  site  and  remains”  cannot  be

divorced from the existence of “ancient monuments”. In light of

this, stating that there are no monuments in Virupapura Gaddi,

6

he argued that there could not be any “archaeological remains”

as well, for it to be declared as ‘protected area’ under Section

19. Thus, the constructions in question were not hit by the 1988

notification.  

In any case, even if the entire village was considered to be

‘protected area’ under the 1988 notification, he contended that

the  HWHAMA  did  not  have  any  authority  to  demolish  the

structures raised by the Appellants for two reasons –  first, the

HWHAMA was an authority established under the Hampi Act,

which is a legislation that is independent of the 1961 Act. Thus,

even if the constructions fell foul of Section 20(1) of the 1961

Act  on  account  of  the  land  being  used  for  non-cultivable

purpose, Section 20(2), which gives the Deputy Commissioner

the power to order removal of such construction, should have

been  resorted  to.  In  the  absence  of  such  action  by  the

particular  authority  envisaged  under  the  1961  Act,  i.e.  the

Deputy  Commissioner,  it  was  contended  that  the  HWHAMA

could not have proceeded with the demolition. Secondly, it was

submitted that since the construction was carried out by the

Appellants prior to the coming into force of the Hampi Act, the

HWHAMA could not have acted in relation to them, as its power

7

to control development in heritage areas under Section 14 is

prospective  in  nature.  In  any  case,  such  powers  could  have

been exercised only upon the issuance of a notification under

Section 14(1), which was not done in the present case. Thus,

the Appellants submitted that their businesses were being run

legally  after  obtaining  the  relevant  licenses  from  the  local

bodies, and the construction in question was being wrongfully

demolished by the HWHAMA.   

6.      Supporting these contentions, learned Senior Counsels,

Mr.  Basava  Prabhu  S.  Patil  and  Mr.  Guru  Krishna  Kumar

representing  the  other  Appellants,  drew  our  attention  to  a

challenge to the 1988 notification, which is currently pending

before the High Court of Karnataka. In light of this, they prayed

that the buildings of the Appellants not be demolished before

the final decision is rendered by the High Court. On merits, it

was argued that the impugned order was without reasons and

proceeded  on  unsubstantiated  assumptions,  especially  with

respect to findings on illegality of conversion orders granted by

the local authorities.

7.      Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Mr. P.S. Narasimha,

appearing for HWHAMA (Respondent No. 4 herein) argued that

8

the entire village of Virupapura Gaddi falls within the ‘protected

area’  declared  by  the  State  Government  in  the  1988

notification.  To  substantiate  the  same,  he  referred  us  to

Column  5  of  the  Schedule  to  this  notification,  and  Map  ‘A’

annexed thereto, both of which make it sufficiently clear that

the entire  village of  Virupapura Gaddi  is  included within  the

boundaries of the protected area.

   Further, he submitted that the scheme of the 1961 Act

is such that  ‘protected areas’ constitute a category separate

from  ‘protected  monuments’.  Therefore,  it  is  possible  for

certain  areas  to be protected independent of the  existence of

monuments,  if  there is  a reasonable belief  that they contain

ruins or relics of historical or archaeological importance. In light

of this,  he drew upon materials indicating the archaeological

significance of Virupapura Gaddi, and submitted that the 1988

notification was justifiably made applicable to the entire village.

Based on this,  he contended that the land in the area could

only  be  used  for  cultivation  purposes  as  per  the  proviso  to

Section  20(1)  of  the  1961  Act.  Since  the  Appellants  were

carrying out commercial activities there, the structures raised

by them were argued as being in violation of the 1961 Act.  

9

    As regards the jurisdiction of the HWHAMA to direct the

demolition  of  such  constructions,  learned  Senior  Counsel

argued that even though the HWHAMA is an authority under a

subsequent  legislation,  the regimes of the 1961 Act and the

Hampi  Act  should  not  be  viewed  as  strictly  separate

compartments. Drawing upon the context in which the Hampi

Act was introduced, he submitted that it should not be seen as

being divorced from the 1961 Act, but in  furtherance of it. To

substantiate this,  he indicated that the Hampi Act effectively

incorporates the 1988 notification issued under the 1961 Act by

denoting the protected area declared under the notification as

the ‘core area zone’ under it. Further, he alluded to the current

restrictions and prohibitions applicable to core area zones as

well  as the Zonal  Regulations framed under the Master  Plan

2021 to argue that the restrictions on Virupapura Gaddi under

the Hampi Act are co-terminus with the restrictions imposed on

the area under  the 1988 notification.  In  light  of  this,  it  was

contended that the regimes under the two statutes should not

be  treated  as  silos  and  the  HWHAMA  had  the  authority  to

enforce the 1988 notification issued under the 1961 Act.

10

    Lastly, with regards to Section 14 of the Hampi Act, it

was  submitted  that  it  is  only  an  overarching  provision  that

allows  for  the  issuance  of  a  further  notification  to  control

development in the heritage area. In other words, the lack of a

notification  under  Section  14(1)  does  not  render  a  prior

notification  intended  for  the  same  purpose  meaningless  or

unenforceable by the HWHAMA. In fact, in view of the functions

delineated for the HWHAMA under Section 11 of the Hampi Act,

he argued that the authority was right in proceeding against

the illegal constructions as part of its duty to protect property

within the heritage area.  

8.       The  contentions  raised  by  Mr.  Narasimha  were

adopted  by  learned  Senior  Counsel,  Mr.  Devdatt  Kamat,

representing the Government of Karnataka, Respondent No. 1

herein.  

9.       Upon perusing the material on record and in light of

the arguments advanced by the parties,  the following issues

arise for our consideration in this appeal–  

(i) Whether the construction raised by the Appellants was

lawful  under  the  1961  Act,  in  light  of  the  1988

notification?

11

(ii) If not, whether the HWHAMA had authority to demolish

the said constructions?  

10.      Before  we  delve  into  these  issues,  it  would  be

appropriate to consider the preliminary objection raised by the

Appellants with respect to hearing of the instant appeal, in light

of  a  pending  challenge  to  the  Hampi  Act  and  the  1988

notification.  

10.1       The Hampi Act is said to be under challenge before the

High Court. Vide I.A. No. 58525 of 2017 filed in the underlying

SLP,  the  Appellants  sought  permission  to  amend  the  SLP

seeking a declaration that the 1988 notification is  ultra vires

the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Historical Sites

and Remains Act, 1958, the 1961 Act, as well as the Hampi Act.

While  disposing off the  said  application,  this  Court  observed

thus:

“It may be pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have already filed a writ  petition before the  Karnataka  High  Court  being  Writ  Petition  Nos. 65940-65949 of 2011 in which the petitioners submit that  the  Hampi  World  Heritage  Management Authority Act 2002 is arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional as stated supra. There is conflict of provisions  of  different  Acts  viz.,  Karnataka  Ancient and Historical  Monuments  and Archaeological  Sites and Remains Act, 1961, the Ancient Monuments and

12

Archaeological  Sites  and  Remains  Act,  1958  and Hampi  World  Heritage  Authority  Management  Act 2002 and also Master plan 2012. Thus, it is necessary to stay the operation of  the Hampi  World Heritage Authority  Management  Act,  2002  and  Master  Plan 2021 pending disposal of the writ petition. If the Act is not stayed, there will be multiplicity of litigations.

As  the  matter  is  still  pending  before  the Karnataka High Court,  we,  therefore,  do not  find it proper  to  allow  the  application  for  amendment  of SLP. It is hereby rejected.  

However,  if  the  petitioners  want  to  challenge the  said  Notification,  they  may  do  it  either  by amending the petition pending before the Karnataka High Court or by filing a fresh petition before the High Court as per law.”

10.2       From the above, it is clear that though the petition

challenging the Hampi Act was filed in the year 2011, the same

has not been pursued by the Appellant before the High Court.

Be that as it may, nothing has been placed on record by the

Appellants to show that operation of the 1988 notification or

the Hampi Act has been stayed. In the absence of any such

interim order staying the operation of the said notification or

the Hampi Act, it is not open for the Appellants to use the same

to argue for a deferral of the hearing of the instant appeals till

the disposal  of  W.P.  Nos.  65940-65949 of  2011 by the High

Court.  Accordingly,  we  reject  the  prayer  made  by  the

13

Appellants for deferring the matter till the disposal of the writ

petitions pending before the High Court.

11.     In light of this, we now proceed to examine the issues

arising for our consideration in the instant appeals.  

Re: First Issue

12.    The  first  issue  pertains  to  the  validity  of  the

development undertaken by the Appellants under the 1961 Act.

In this context, it would be useful to refer to certain relevant

provisions of the Act:  

“Section 2. Definitions.— (1) “ancient  monument”  means  any  structure, erection or  monument,  or  any tumulus  or  place of interment, or any cave, rock-sculpture, inscription or monolith  which  is  of  historical,  archaeological  or artistic interest and which has been in existence for not less than one hundred years, and includes –

(i) the remains of an ancient monument, (ii) the site of an ancient monument, (iii) such portion of land adjoining the site of an ancient  monument  as  may  be  required  for fencing or covering in or  otherwise preserving such monument, and (iv)  the  means  of  access  to,  and  convenient inspection of, an ancient monument;  

but  shall  not  include  ancient  and  historical monuments  declared  by  or  under  law  made  by Parliament to be of national importance;

x x x

14

(3) “archaeological  site  and  remains”  means  any area  which  contains  or  is  reasonably  believed  to contain ruins or relics of historical or archaeological importance which have been in existence for not less than one hundred years, and includes—  

(i)  such  portion  of  land  adjoining  the  area  as may be required for  fencing or  covering in  or otherwise preserving it, and  (ii)  the  means  of  access  to,  and  convenient inspection of the area;  

x x x

(9) “protected area” means any archaeological  site and remains which is declared to be protected under this Act;  

x x x

Section  4: Power  of  Government  to  declare ancient  monuments  to  be  protected monuments.— (1)  Where  the  Government  is  of  opinion  that  any ancient monument should be declared as a protected monument,  it  may,  by  notification  in  the  official Gazette, give two months’ notice of its intention to declare  such  ancient  monument  to  be  a  protected monument and a copy of every such notification shall be  affixed  in  a  conspicuous  place  near  the monument.  (2)  Any  person  interested  in  any  such  ancient monument may within two months after the issue of the  notification,  object  to  the  declaration  of  the monument to be a protected monument.  (3) On the expiry of the said period of two months, the  Government  may,  after  considering  the

15

objections,  if  any,  received  by  it,  declare  by notification  in  the  Official  Gazette  the  ancient monument to be a protected monument.  (4)  A  notification  published  under  sub-section  (3) shall, unless and until it is withdrawn, be conclusive evidence of the fact that the ancient monument to which  it  relates  is  a  protected  monument  for  the purposes of this Act.  

x x x

Section  19:  Power  of  Government  to  declare archaeological site and remains to be protected area.— (1)  Where  the  Government  is  of  opinion  that  any archaeological site and remains should be declared as  a  protected  area,  it  may,  by  notification  in  the Official  Gazette,  give  two  months’  notice  of  its intention  to  declare  such  archaeological  site  and remains to be a protected area, and a copy of every such  notification  shall  be  affixed  in  a  conspicuous place near the site and remains.  (2) Any person interested in any such archaeological site and remains may, within two months after the issue of the notification, object to the declaration of the archaeological site and remains to be protected area.  (3) On the expiry of the said period of two months, the  Government  may,  after  considering  the objections,  if  any,  received  by  it,  declare  by notification in the Official Gazette, the archaeological site and remains to be a protected area.  (4)  A  notification  published  under  sub-section  (3) shall, unless and until it is withdrawn, be conclusive evidence of the fact that the archaeological site and remains to which it relates is a protected area for the purposes of this Act.”

16

13.       In  the  instant  case,  exercising  its  powers  under

Section 19(3) of the 1961 Act, the State Government issued the

1988  notification  declaring  certain  areas  specified  in  the

Schedule thereto  as  protected areas.  From a perusal  of  this

Schedule, it is amply clear that “Virupapura Gaddi” had been

indicated in Column 5 as a covered area. Further, Map ‘A’ which

is  annexed  to  this  Schedule  also  makes  it  evident  that  the

entire  village  of  Virupapura  Gaddi  was  included  within  the

boundaries of the protected areas. In fact, the specific Survey

Nos.  of  lands  where  the  Appellants  are  carrying  on  their

restaurants and guesthouses are also mentioned in this Map.

Thus,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  1988  notification  clearly

indicates the entire village of Virupapura Gaddi as a protected

zone.  

14.       As to whether the entire village could be declared as

protected area by the 1988 notification, we do not find merit in

the Appellants’ argument that a notification under Section 19 of

the 1961 Act only contemplates protection for archaeological

site  and  remains  that  are  linked  to  the  existence  of

monuments.

17

14.1 In  our  opinion,  the  1961  Act  makes  two  distinct

categories for protected monuments (see Sections 3 to 18) and

protected  areas  (see Section  19 onwards).  While  the  former

relates  to  “ancient  monuments”,  the  latter  relates  to

“archaeological site and remains”. Upon a close reading of the

1961 Act, we find that there is nothing in the definitions under

Sections 2(1) and 2(3) or otherwise under the scheme of the

1961  Act,  that  indicates  a  link  between  the  existence  of

“archaeological site and remains” and “ancient monuments”. It

cannot be said that the protection ascribed to archaeological

site and remains must necessarily depend on the existence of a

monument.  It  is  possible  for  certain  areas  to  be  protected

independent of  the  existence  of  monuments,  if  there  is  a

reasonable belief that they contain ruins or relics of historical or

archaeological importance [see Section 2(3) supra].  

14.2 In  light  of  this,  when  we  look  to  the  village  of

Virupapura  Gaddi  specifically,  there  appears  to  be  sufficient

material  to  establish  its  archaeological  significance.  The

Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Respondent No.5 herein,

has  in  fact  highlighted  the  archaeological  importance  of

18

Virupapura Gaddi in its Statement of Objections filed before the

High Court as under:

“2. LOCATION OF VIRUPAPURA GUDDA AND ITS IMPORTANCE

x x x 2.1   Virupapura Gudda is an oval islet formed by the river  Tungahbhadra  flowing  towards  the  northern perimeter  of  Hampi  World  Heritage  site.  The  river flowing in east-west direction has many small islets of which the above is the largest measuring nearly 2,600  mtrs  east-west  and  1,300  mtrs  north-south. The islet in the centre throughout its east-west length is characterized by undulated low hillock of granite and the highest altitude is 1,570 feet. The southern, western and northern part is put to cultivation.  

x x x

3.  Important  Archaeological  remains  close  to Virupapura Gadda

1.  Sri  Virupaksha  Temple  and the Hampi ruins: This is in Regulated zone and 200 mtrs; from the south eastern extreme of Virupapuragadda to the fort wall to the north of Virupaksha Temple complex.  

2. Kodandarama Temple: This is in Regulated zone and 165.68 mtrs from State protected; from the south  eastern  extreme  of  Virupapuragadda  to  the Temple.

3. Varaha Temple: This is centrally protected monument and 249.00 mtrs; from the south eastern extreme of Virupapuragadda to the Temple.

4. Koti  Linga:  This  is  a  State  protected monument  and  190.58  mtrs  from  the  southern extreme  of  Virupapuragadda  to  the  parent  rock formation where the Kotilinga is situated.

19

5. Western  fort  wall  –  Vithala  Temple Complex: This is centrally protected monument and 229.40 mtrs from Regulated zone to the island.  

6. Purandara  mandapa:  This  is  State protected  monument  and  150.59  mtrs  from Regulated zone to the island.  

7. Ancient path: This is nearly 121 mtrs; State protected monument and this is a Regulated zone.  

x x x

Pre and proto-history of the Place-Virupapura Gadda 4.  The hillock  of  Virupapura Gudda is  identified traditionally as the kishkinda of Ramayana fame and has the attachment of the sentiment as the sacred site of Sri Ramachandra.  

4.1 The heaps of granite boulders are the home of many natural rock shelters, which have proven to be the safe habitation of Proto historic man who as a wander  used  these  shelters  to  start  with  before settling down into the hutments of makeshift shelters he  built  or  him…The  geomorphology  of  the  place even today breathes a prehistoric atmosphere. This is so because of the natural habitat, the meandering river  Tungabhadra  offering  little  open  grass  lands with scrubby jungle harboring games for sustenance and  building  hutments  for  living  during  condusive climate. The huge rock shelters offered resting place perhaps during rainy season. The slope of the hillocks of the swarm of dyke formation at Virupapura Gudda offered requisite glade for the pre historic man. This remarkable  integration  of  man-made  and  natural setting,  vivid  in  the  myriad  facets,  viz.  art  and architecture,  socio-cultural,  economical, administrative,  defence  organization  and  natural

20

resource  management,  together  enabled  the establishment of this grand metropolis.

x x x

8.  PROVISIONS  IN  THE  INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PLAN 1. This  island  is  an  important  archaeological  site, which  formed an  access  point  from the  North,  i.e. from  Virupaksha  Temple  and  Tungabhadra  River Bank. The ancient access path from the main land to the  island  leading  from the  northern  point  can  be observed when the water level is low in the river and during the months of summer, the same path way is in  use.  Otherwise when the river  flows with full  of water, to have the access the same route is used by the boatmen to take the people to the island. Hence, the site is of great archaeological importance…”

14.3 From these  observations  by  the  ASI,  a  specialized

body responsible for archaeological research and conservation

of cultural monuments in India, there remains little doubt as to

the historical importance of Virupapura Gaddi. It appears that

the  Government  had  considered  the  comprehensive

geographical  entity  of  the  area,  including  attributes  like  its

landscape, prehistoric vestiges and water systems. Thus, the

1988 notification issued under Section 19(3) of the 1961 Act

declaring Virupapura Gaddi as a protected area cannot be said

to  be  without  basis.  Further,  Section  19(4)  of  the  1961  Act

21

clarifies  that  the  notification  issued  under  Section  19(3)

conclusively  establishes  the  status  of  Virupapura  Gaddi  as

protected area under the said Act.  

15.        In light of this, we now proceed to consider the effect

of  the  1988  notification  on  the  constructions  raised  by  the

Appellants  during  the  period  between  1991-2000.  In  this

regard, Section 20 of the 1961 Act is relevant:

“Section  20: Restrictions  on  enjoyment  of property rights in protected areas.— (1) No person, including the owner or occupier of a protected  area,  shall  construct  any  building  within the protected area or carry on any mining, quarrying, excavating, blasting or any operation of a like nature in such area, or utilise such area or any part thereof in any other manner without the permission of the Government:  Provided  that  nothing  in  this  sub-section  shall  be deemed to prohibit the use of any such area or part thereof for purposes of cultivation if such cultivation does not involve the digging of not more than one foot of soil from the surface.  (2) The Government may, by order, direct that any building  constructed  by  any  person  within  a protected area in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) shall  be removed within a specified period and, if the person refuses or fails to comply with the order, the Deputy Commissioner may cause the building to be removed and the person shall be liable to pay the cost of such removal.”

22

     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.  

16.       Here, since the entire area comprising Virupapura

Gaddi  had  been  declared  as  protected  area  vide  the  1988

notification,  it  follows that the land owned by the Appellants

could have only been used for the purpose of cultivation after

the issuance of such notification. However, as mentioned supra,

the  Appellants  had  constructed  huts  and  buildings  on  their

lands  for  the  commercial  purpose  of  running  hotels,

restaurants,  and  guest  houses.  Clearly  then,  these

constructions were in violation of Section 20(1) of the 1961 Act.

17.        Furthermore, the permissions/licenses obtained by

the Appellants from the local panchayat were issued without

any authority, as Section 20(1) of the 1961 Act makes the State

Government the appropriate authority for granting permissions

for  non-cultivable  use  of  protected  areas.  Thus,  the  licenses

issued by the panchayat cannot but be said to be illegal.

23

18.         In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that by

virtue of  the 1988 notification declaring the entire  village of

Virupapura  Gaddi  as  a  protected  area,  the  restrictions  on

construction and use under Section 20(1) came into operation

with  effect  from  22.10.1988  itself.  Thus,  the  construction

carried out by the Appellants on their lands at Virupapura Gaddi

for commercial purposes was in violation of the 1961 Act.  

Re: Second Issue

19.         The second issue pertains to whether the HWHAMA

could have proceeded to demolish these illegal constructions.

20.         In this regard, as mentioned supra, the Appellants

have argued that the HWHAMA, which is a body set up under

the  Hampi  Act,  could  not  have  issued  such  orders  for

demolition  as  the  illegality  of  the  constructions  (if  any)  was

rooted in the 1961 Act. At its very core, we find that this issue

relates to the interplay between the 1961 Act and the Hampi

Act. Thus, before delving into the relevant legal provisions, we

deem it fit to appreciate the objects underlying these statutes

and the contexts in which they were enacted.  

20.1 As  mentioned supra,  the  1961  Act  was  introduced

with  the  object  of  ensuring  the  preservation  of  ancient

24

monuments and archaeological sites and remains in Karnataka.

In  pursuance  of  the  same,  the  1988  notification  was  issued

under  Section  19(3)  declaring  certain  areas  in  Hampi  as

‘protected areas’.  

20.2 Notably, in 1989, the group of monuments at Hampi

were inscribed in the list of “World Heritage sites” declared by

the  United  Nations  Educational,  Scientific,  and  Cultural

Organisation  (hereinafter  ‘UNESCO’).  The  UNESCO  is  a

specialized  agency  of  the  United  Nations  and  inter  alia its

objective  is  to  encourage  the  identification,  protection,  and

preservation of cultural and natural heritage around the world

considered  to  be  of  outstanding  value  to  humanity.  In

pursuance of the same, the UNESCO Conference adopted the

Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and

Natural Heritage in 1972,1 emphasizing the obligation of State

parties to take necessary measures for the conservation and

protection of world heritage properties.

           Specifically, the recognition of the monuments at

Hampi as a World Heritage site was based on the fulfilment of

the   following  points  of  the  10-point  criteria  stipulated  by

UNESCO:  1  India ratified this Convention in the year 1977.

25

Criterion  (i)-  to  represent  a  masterpiece  of human  creative  genius:  The  remarkable integration between the planned and defended city of Hampi with its exemplary temple architecture and its  spectacular  natural  setting  represent  a  unique artistic creation.

Criterion  (iii)-  to  bear  unique  or  at  least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to  a  civilization  which  is  living  or  which  has disappeared: The city bears exceptional testimony to  the  vanished  civilization  of  the  kingdom  of Vijayanagara,  which  reached  its  apogee  under  the reign of Krishna Deva Raya (1509-1530).

Criterion (iv)- to be an outstanding example of a  type  of  building,  architectural  or technological  ensemble  or  landscape  which illustrates  (a)  significant  stage(s)  in  human history:  This capital offers an outstanding example of a type of structure which illustrates a significant historical  situation:  that  of  the  destruction  of  the Vijayanagara kingdom at the Battle of Talikota (1565 CE) which left behind an ensemble of living temples, magnificent  archaeological  remains  in  the  form  of elaborate sacred, royal, civil  and military structures as well  as traces of  its  rich lifestyle,  all  integrated within its natural setting.2

      From the above, it is evident that the recognition of

Hampi as a World Heritage site was a testament to its immense

2    The  Criteria  for  Selection  to  be  included  on  the  World Heritage  List,  available  at  https://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/;  The Description  of  Group of  Monuments at Hampi,  UNESCO World Heritage List, available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/241.

26

historical  importance.  It  was  also  a  crucial  milestone  in  the

efforts  to  preserve and protect  the Hampi  monuments,  as it

paved way for India to access the annual World Heritage Fund

of US$ 4 million earmarked by the UNESCO for the upkeep of

World Heritage sites.  

20.3 Soon  after  such  recognition,  as  the  number  of

tourists visiting Hampi increased, concerns began being raised

about uncontrolled construction, haphazard development, and

other  illegal  activities  carried  out  in  the  garb  of  catering  to

tourists. In light of these developments, the UNESCO classified

the Hampi  World Heritage properties as being ‘in  danger’  in

1999. This classification was significant inasmuch as it reflected

the  deteriorating  condition  of  the  area.  Notably,  the  Hampi

World Heritage properties continued to be classified as such till

2006.    

20.4 In  view of  such  changes  and  its  obligations  under

international conventions, the Government of Karnataka felt it

necessary  to  create  a  body  that  would  streamline  the

development in the Hampi region. However, till the time that a

specific statute was enacted for  such purpose,  the HWHAMA

27

was  constituted  as  an  interim  authority  vide  a  Government

Order dated 21.03.2002. The Preamble to this order is notable:

“Preamble:  Hampi  has  been  declared  as  a  World Heritage Site by the UNESCO and the Government of India has recently announced that Hampi would be developed  as  an  international  destination  centre. There  is  a  need  for  proper  management  and development of Hampi World Heritage Area in order to  conserve and  preserve  the  rich  heritage in  this area  and  at  the  same  time  develop  the  area  for providing  good  facilities  for  both  national  and international  tourists.  Thus  all  the  activities  in  the Hampi World Heritage Area need to be regulated and coordinated in order to provide facilities and at the same  time  ensure  proper  conservation  of  the heritage.  There  is  a  need  for  a  statutory  body regulating  on  the  issues  pertaining  to  the management and development aspects in the Hampi World  Heritage  Area.  The  Government  is contemplating a legislation constituting Hampi World Heritage  Area  Management  Authority.  In  the interregnum, there is an immediate need to have an interim body to promote coordinated development of the  heritage area.  Thus  the  Hampi  World  Heritage Area  Management  Authority  and  the  State  Level Advisory Committee are being constituted through an executive order to manage the affairs of Hampi till the statutory bodies come into effect.”

20.5   Subsequently,  the  State  Government  enacted  a

specific legislation for the conservation of the cultural heritage

of Hampi, i.e. the Hampi Act. This Act was brought into force

with effect from 27.01.2005, and the HWHAMA was constituted

28

under Section 3 thereof. Until such time, the interim authority

constituted  vide  Government  Order  dated  21.03.2002,

mentioned supra, continued. The overall  object of the Hampi

Act can be gleaned from its Preamble, which reads as follows:  

“An  Act  to  provide  for  conservation  of  the cultural heritage of Hampi with all  its archeological remains and natural environs; to preserve its cultural identity  and  to  ensure  sustainable  development  of the  Hampi  World  Heritage  Area,  in  the  State  of Karnataka  and  to  constitute  Hampi  World  Heritage Area Management Authority.

Whereas it is expedient to provide for,- (a) the conservation of the Cultural Heritage and natural environs of Hampi and its surroundings; (b) the preservation of the historical and cultural identity of Hampi as a World Heritage Centre; (c)  preventing  uncontrolled  development  and commercial exploitation of the area; (d) sustained development of the area which is conducive to the above objectives, and (e) for matters incidental thereto…”

20.6   A close reading of the Preamble to the Hampi Act

reveals an underlying common object between the 1961 Act

and  the  Hampi  Act–  providing  for  the  preservation  of  the

respective  monuments  and  areas  protected  under  these

legislations. The difference is that the 1961 Act was enacted as

29

a broader  legislation covering the entire  State of  Karnataka,

while the Hampi Act was enacted with a specific focus on the

heritage  site  of  Hampi,  keeping  in  mind  the  international

recognition that had been accorded to it.  

20.7   In addition to such common object,  certain other

provisions of the Hampi Act also indicate a continuity between

the  legal  regimes  of  the  1961  Act  and  the  Hampi  Act.  For

instance,  the  Hampi  Act  directly  incorporates  the  1988

notification issued under Section 19(3) of the 1961 Act, while

demarcating the Hampi heritage area in its Schedule. “Heritage

area” has been defined as follows under the Hampi Act:

“Section 2: Definitions.-  (1) In this Act unless the context otherwise requires,-… …(l)  “Heritage Area”  means the whole of  the area comprising  the  Core  Area  Zone,  Buffer  Zone  and Peripheral Zones, but excluding the area referred to as protected area under the Ancient Monuments and Historical sites and Remains Act,  1958 (Central Act 24 of 1958);”

        Parts A, B, and C of Schedule I to the Hampi Act

respectively indicate the extent of the core area zone, buffer

zone and peripheral zone forming part of the Hampi heritage

area. Under Part A, which indicates the extent of the core area

30

zone, there is a clear reference to the area of 41.80 sq kms

declared to be protected area under the 1988 notification.  

20.8  Furthermore, even the applicable restrictions under

the Master Plan 2021 prepared under the Hampi Act are similar

to those imposed by virtue of the 1988 notification, inasmuch

as  no  development  of  Virupapura  Gaddi  is  permissible.  The

Master Plan 2021 came into force on 10.07.2008. It stipulates

the formation of development schemes for towns and villages

included within the Hampi local planning area. Though it did not

provide for a specific development plan for Virupapura Gaddi, it

provides  Zonal  Regulations  for  areas  under  special  control,

which include river islands, tank beds  et al. Regulation 2(f) of

these Zonal regulations, which deals with such areas of special

control is relevant here:

“(f)  No  development  is  permitted  in  eco-sensitive areas  like  river  islands,  tank  bed  areas,  rocky outcrop, hillocks, and forest areas.”

     In light of this, given that Virupapura Gaddi is a river

island, it is evident that no development is permissible there

even per the Master Plan 2021 prepared under the Hampi Act.

When juxtaposed with the restrictions under Section 20(1) of

31

the 1961 Act, this also indicates a continuity between the 1961

Act and the Hampi Act.  

21.       In view of the foregoing factors, we do not find merit in

the  Appellants’  argument  that  the  Hampi  Act  is  purely

prospective in nature and that the HWHAMA, which has been

established under such Act, cannot enforce prior notifications.

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. Therefore,

the  1961 Act  and the  Hampi  Act  must  not  be  construed as

isolated silos. Since they both seek to fulfill a common object,

they must be interpreted in a manner that seeks to further such

objective, and not obstruct it.  

22.        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

32

and the Hampi Act, it cannot be said that such illegality ceased

to  exist  when  the  Hampi  Act  came  into  force.  Thus,  the

HWHAMA  was,  and  is  entitled  to  proceed  against  the

development  raised  by  the  Appellants,  which  had  been

rendered illegal under the prior legislation.  

23.       It may also be useful to appreciate the background in

which the HWHAMA had proceeded to take action against the

Appellants.  As  mentioned  supra,  the  Hampi  World  Heritage

properties had been included in the ‘in danger’ list by UNESCO

in  1999.  However,  owing  to  serious  efforts  by  the  State

Government and the HWHAMA, this classification was dropped

in 2006. The threat to the various monuments and the integrity

of  the  landscape of  Hampi,  however,  continued.  This  is  well

reflected  in  the  resolution  of  the  33rd meeting  of  the  World

Heritage  Committee  of  UNESCO  in  2009,  wherein  rampant

illegal constructions in the village of Virupapura Gaddi, found a

specific mention:

“…The World Heritage Committee, 1. xxx 2. xxx 3. xxx 4. xxx 5. xxx 6. xxx

33

7.  Expresses  its  concern  over  illegal  constructions and  other  developments,  such  as  social  housing projects,  within the extended boundaries which are being  considered  for  the  possible  extension  of  the property, particularly in Virupapura Gada island and Hampi  villlages,  which  appear  to  have  a  negative impact on the integrity of the landscape….”

Similar concerns were also raised at the 34th  meeting of

the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in 2010.  

24.        It was in the context of these developments that the

HWHAMA had directed the local authorities to not renew the

trade licenses issued to the Appellants, and later proceeded to

issue notices for demolishing the constructions raised by the

Appellants. In view of the broad ranging functions envisaged for

the HWHAMA under Section 11 of the Hampi Act, we find that

its actions were lawful, as it was incumbent upon the authority

to  act  and  not  turn  a  blind  eye  to  the  illegality  being

perpetrated by the Appellants.  

25.       Finally, we advert to the claim of the Appellants that

the lack of a notification under Section 14(1) of the Hampi Act

fettered  the  powers  of  the  HWHAMA to  take  action  against

them. It may be useful to refer to Section 14 in this regard:

34

“Section  14:  No other  authority  or  person  to undertake development without permission of the Authority.-  (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the  time  being  in  force,  except  with  the  previous permission  of  the  Authority,  no  other  authority  or person shall  undertake any development within the Heritage  Area,  of  the  types  as  the  Authority  may from time to time specify by notification published in the Official Gazette.  (2) No local authority shall grant permission for any development referred to in sub-section (1), within the Heritage  Area,  unless  the  Authority  has  granted permission for such development.  (3)  Any  authority  or  person  desiring  to  undertake development referred to in sub-section (1) shall apply in  writing  to  the  Authority  for  permission  to undertake such development.  (4) The Authority may, after making such inquiry as it deems necessary grant such permission without or with such conditions, as it may deem fit, to impose or refuse to grant such permission.  (5) Any authority or person aggrieved by the decision of  the  Authority  under  sub-section  (4)  may,  within thirty  days  from  the  date  of  the  decision  appeal against  such  decision  to  the  State  Government, whose decision thereon shall be final:  Provided  that,  where  the  aggrieved  authority submitting such appeal  is  under  the administrative control of the Central Government, the appeal shall be  decided  by  the  State  Government,  after consultation with the Central Government. (6)  In  case  any  person  or  authority  does  anything contrary to the decision given under sub-section (4) as  modified  in  sub-section  (5),  the  Authority  shall have power to pull  down, demolish or remove any development under taken contrary to such decision and recover the cost of such pulling down, demolition or removal from the person or authority concerned.”

35

Evidently, under Section 14(1), the HWHAMA is made the

sole authority for undertaking development in the heritage area

of such types as it may specify by a notification.  

25.1  Though the Appellants have contended that such a

notification  under  Section  14(1)  is  a  pre-condition  for  the

HWHAMA  to  exercise  its  powers  to  order  demolition  under

Section 14(6), we are not inclined to accept such an argument.

In view of the co-terminus legislative scheme of the 1961 Act

and the Hampi Act, we find that Section 14 of the Hampi Act

acts as an overarching provision that enables the issuance of a

further  notification  to  control  development  in  the  Hampi

heritage area. This, however, does not mean that the lack of a

notification  under  Section  14(1)  renders  a  prior  notification

intended for the same purpose unenforceable, as is the case

with the 1988 notification here.  

25.2 In  any  case,  we  find  that  the  notification  dated

10.07.2008 regarding the implementation of  the Master  Plan

2021  and  the  Zonal  Regulations  fulfils  the  requirement  of

Section 14(1) in the present case, as they clearly specify the

restrictions  as  to  land  use  and  the  prohibited  types  of

development. Thus, the Appellants cannot use the absence of

36

regulation of Virupapura Gaddi as a ground to justify the illegal

construction on their land.  

26.         In light of the foregoing discussion, we conclude that

the construction  of  rooms,  thatched  roof  huts,  temporary

structures,  and  buildings  by  the  Appellants  to  carry  on  the

business of hotels, restaurants, or guesthouses in Virupapura

Gaddi was in violation of the 1961 Act. Further, it is held that

the HWHAMA had the authority to proceed with the demolition

of such illegal constructions. Thus, we do not find any reason to

interfere with  the impugned final  judgment  and order  dated

27.04.2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka.  

27.          In view of these findings, the Respondents shall

proceed with the demolition of the illegal structures erected by

the  Appellants  in  Virupapura  Gaddi  within  a  period  of  one

month from the date of this order. With such observations, the

instant appeals stand dismissed. Ordered accordingly.  

…..…………................................J. (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)

.……………………………...............J.       (R. SUBHASH REDDY)

New Delhi; February 11, 2020