'Hampi A Site Of Historic Importance' : SC Upholds Direction To Demolish Constructions In Virupapura Gaddi [Read Judgment]

Acknowledging the historic importance of Hampi heritage site, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the demolition of unauthorized constructions in Virupapura Gaddi, an oval islet formed by Tungabhadra river on the west of Hampi.

A bench comprising Justices Mohan M Shantanagoudar and R Subhash Reddy dismissed the appeals filed against a judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka in 2015, which upheld the orders passed by Hampi World Heritage Management Authority (HWHMA) for demolition of restaurants, guest houses, hotels etc built along the Virupapura Gaddi islet.

The apex court has directed the authorities to proceed with their demolition work within a month of the judgment.

The primary contention of the appellants was that the HWMHMA cannot direct the demolition of buildings which were created much before the enactment of the Hampi World Heritage Management Authority Act passed in 2002.

They claimed that the constructions were made as per licenses and permits issued by local authorities in 1999-2000.

On the other hand, the respondents pointed out that ten villages in Virupapura Gaddi were declared as 'protected areas' way back in 1988 under the Mysore Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961.

As per Section 20(1) of the 1961 Act, the lands in 'protected areas' can be used only for the purposes of cultivation, unless otherwise approved by the State Government.

In response, the appellants contended that an entire village cannot be declared as 'protected area' under the 1961 Act, which dealt with only historical monuments, archaeological sites and remains. Since there was no monument or site in the villages, they cannot be brought under the Act, they contended.

This contention was rejected by the Court saying :

"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".

Perusing the reports of ASI, the Court noted that there was "no doubt about the historical importance of Virupapura Gaddi".

Therefore, the appellants could not have used their lands for construction after the 1988 notification. The licenses issued by Panchayat were also held to be illegal on this count, as necessary permission from the State Government was not taken.

The second issue raised by the appellants was that HWHMA could not have proceeded with demolition, as the buildings were constructed prior to the enactment of HWHMA Act in 2002.

The Court however rejected this contention by holding that the 1961 Act and the 2002 Act should be read together.

"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". 

In this connection, the Court noted that the UNESCO had declared Hampi as a World Heritage Site in 1989 and the Hampi Act was enacted for the preservation of this site.

"It is evident that the recognition of Hampi as a World Heritage site was a testament to its immense 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", the Court observed. 

Case Details
Title : Sakkubai and others vs State of Karnataka and others
Case No. : Civil Appeal 1443-1446/2020.
Bench    : Justices Mohan M Shantanagoudar and R Subhash Reddy
Appearances : Senior Advocates Shekhar Naphade, Basava Prabhu S Patil, Guru Krishna Kumar for appellants; Senior Advocates P S Narasimha and Devdatt Kamat for HWHMA and Karnataka Govt respectively.

Click here to download judgment

Read Judgment