- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ram Sarup v. State Of Haryana And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 5 January 1984 by the learned single Judge in writ petition No. 3694 of 1981 (reported at 1984 Pun LJ 441), filed by Ram Sarup, a partner of Singla Rice and General Mills, Thanesar, Kurukshetra. The petitioner challenged (a) the Notification dated 26 June 1980 issued under Section 4(1)(b) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 ("the Act"), which declared a controlled area around "Brahm Sarovar" at Kurukshetra, and (b) a criminal complaint filed pursuant to that Notification.
Relevant events: the Mill (Rice and General Mills) was constructed in 1972 within municipal limits of Kurukshetra. The petitioner proposed to construct three rooms as an extension for a sister concern "Singla Industries" on Salarpur Road, Thanesar. The area had been declared a controlled area by Notification of 26 June 1980 (published 29 July 1980). An application for sanction of the constructions was submitted on 25 August 1980; the Municipal Engineer purportedly certified on 16 September 1980 that there was no objection to installation. District Town Planner officers visited the site on 26 September 1980 and reported that construction was underway contrary to the Notification. A show-cause notice dated 4 November 1980 was issued to stop further construction and to restore the land; the petitioner continued the works. The District Town Planner filed a complaint under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurukshetra. The petitioner challenged the Notification and the complaint by writ; the single Judge upheld the S.4 Notification and dismissed the writ petition on 5 January 1984. That dismissal is the subject of the present appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether "Brahm Sarovar" situated in Kurukshetra is a "public institution" or an "ancient and historical monument" within the meaning of Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, thereby justifying the Government's declaration of the surrounding area as a controlled area;
- Whether the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act declaring the controlled area around Brahm Sarovar was valid (as a corollary to issue 1).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The learned counsel for the appellant contended that "Brahm Sarovar" is neither a public institution nor an ancient and historical monument, and therefore the area around it could not validly have been declared a controlled area under the provisions of the Act.
Respondent / State Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the State's legal arguments in opposition; the record notes only that Shri Jagdev Sharma, Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana, appeared for the State.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded by reference to the statutory text and to definitions in other statutory and lexical sources:
- Statutory framework: The court quoted Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, which permits the Government by notification to declare as a controlled area any area adjacent to and within two kilometres of "any industrial or housing estate, public institution or an ancient and historical monument" specified in the notification. The court noted that once a notification under Section 4 is made, Section 6 of the Act imposes restrictions on erection or re-erection of buildings within the controlled area, such that construction cannot proceed except in accordance with the Act.
- Interpretive point: The court observed that the Act does not define "ancient and historical monument." Consequently, it referred to the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (the "1958 Act"), which defines "ancient monument" in Section 2(a), and to dictionary definitions (Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, 1983) for terms such as "ancient" and "ancient monument," and to a dictionary definition of "monument."
- Definitions relied upon: The 1958 Act's definition (quoted in the opinion) describes an "ancient monument" to include structures, places of interment, cave, rock sculpture, inscription or monolith which are of historical, archaeological or artistic interest and which have existed for not less than one hundred years, and also includes adjoining land and means of access. The dictionary definitions supplied additional sense: "ancient" meaning very old or of times long past; "ancient monument" as a building of historical interest scheduled for preservation; and "monument" as anything preserving memory of a person or event or an object of interest as relic of the past.
- Application to Brahm Sarovar: The court examined the historical and physical description of Brahm Sarovar provided in the record: its antiquity and sacred associations with the Mahabharata and Krishna's discourse; traditional accounts attributing selection of the site to King Kuru and its naming Dharmakshetra Kurukshetra; the tank's extant dimensions and features (steps, banks, islands, temples, ruins including remains associated locally with Emperor Aurangzeb), and references to Brahm Sarovar in the Vamana Purana (dating in the opinion to 200 B.C.–500 A.D.), including a translated passage praising its sanctity.
- Concluding legal application: Drawing on the breadth of the 1958 Act's definition and the dictionary meanings, the court concluded that Brahm Sarovar is "very very old" and a historic place that clearly falls within the expressions "ancient and historical monument" as contemplated by the 1958 Act and the dictionary meanings. The court further concluded that, because the monument is a place meant for the public and is visited by lacs of people year after year, it also falls within the expression "public institution."
- Resulting conclusion on validity: Given that Brahm Sarovar qualified as either an "ancient and historical monument" or a "public institution," the power under Section 4(1)(b) to declare the surrounding area a controlled area was properly exercisable by the Government. Accordingly, the Notification issued under Section 4 was valid.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Direct effects of the decision:
- The Notification issued by the Government under Section 4 of the Act declaring the controlled area around Brahm Sarovar was held to be valid.
- The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the learned single Judge (which upheld the Notification and dismissed the writ petition) was affirmed.
- The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
- The parties were further directed to appear before the Magistrate, Kurukshetra, where the criminal complaint is pending, on 15 February 1993.
The opinion does not discuss any broader legal implications beyond these direct effects and does not purport to lay down a new precedent beyond the conclusions reached in this matter.
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal arising out of the judgment dated 5th January, 1984 by the learned single Judge in writ petition No. 3694 of 1981 (reported in 1984 Pun LJ441), filed by Ram Sarup. Partner of Messra Singla Rice and General Mills, Thanesar, district Kurukshetra, seeking quashing of the Notification dated 26th June, 1980 under S. 4( I Xb) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the complaint filed in pursuance thereof.
2. Briefly the facts giving rise to the present Appeal are as follows:-
1. There is a single Rice and General Mills situated in Thanesar, district Kurukshetra. Ram Sarup, petitioner, is a Partner of the same. This Mill was constructed in the year 1972 and is situated within the municipal limits of Kuruk-shetra. The Mills created a sister concern by the name of 'Singla Industries' and it proposed to construct three rooms for the same as an extension of the building to the Mills. These rooms were sought to be constructed on Salarpur Road, Thanesar. The area in which three rooms were sought to be constructed had already been declared as a controlled area vide the Notification issued by the Haryana Government on 26th June. 1980, which was published on 29th July, 1980 under the Act. On 25th August. 1980, an application was submitted for sanction of the said constructions and it has been alleged that on 16th September, 1980, the Municipal Engineer certified that there was no objection to the installation of Singla Industries on Salarpur Road. When the officers of the District Town Planner office visited the site in question on 26th September, 1980, it was reported by them that Ram Sarup was constructing the three rooms which was against the Notification dated 26th June, 1980. He was consequently issued a show-cause notice dated 4-11-1980 under registered cover to stop further construction and another notice was issued to restore the land to its original shape. The petitioner Ram Sarup however, continued the unauthorised constructions and consequently thereafter, the District Town Planner, Kurukshetra filed a complaint under S. 12(1) (b) of the Act in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurukshetra. The petitioner has consequently challenged the Notification issued under S.4 of the Act as well as the complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Kuruksheira. The learned single Judge before whom the writ petition came up for hearing upheld the Notification under S.4 of the Act and consequently dismissed the petition on 5th January, 1984. This judgment of the learned single Judge is subject to challenge in the present appeal.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant Shri R. S. Mittal, Senior Advocate and Shri Jagdev Sharma, Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana.
4. The Notification which has been issued under S. 4(a)(b) of the Act has been filed in the writ petition as Annexure P-l. The Notifi-cation has been issued by the Haryana Government, Town and Country Planning Department in exercise of the powers con ferred under sub-sec. (1)(b) of S.4 of the Act. By this Notification, the Governor of Haryana has been pleased to declare the controlled area around 'Brahm Sarovar' at Kurukshetra as specified in the schedule given in the said Notification to be controlled area for the purposes of the Act.
5. The learned counsel for the Appellant has contended that 'Brahm Sarovar' is neither a public institution nor an ancient and historical monument and as such the area around Brahm Sarovar could not have been declared as a controlled area under the provisions of the Act. The question therefore, for consideration in this Appeal is as to whether Brahm Sarovar' situated in Kurukshetra, is a public institution or an ancient and historical monument to bring it within the purview of the Act. Section 4 of the Act is quoted below:
"4. Declaration of controlled area.-- (1) The Government may by notification declare the whole or any part of any area adjacent to and within a distance of -
(a) eight kilo-metres on the outer sides of the boundary of any town; or
(b) two kilo-metres on the outer sides of the boundary of any industrial or housing estate, public institution or an ancient and historical monument; specified in such notification to he a controlled area for the purposes of this Act.
(2) The Government shall also cause the contents of the declaration made under sub-sec. (1) to be published in at least two newspapers printed in a language other than English."
The above Section 4(1)(b) empowers the Government to declare by Notification the whole or any part of any area as adjacent to and within a distance of two kilo-metres on the outer side of the boundary of any industrial or housing estate, public institution or an ancient and historical monument as specified in such a notification to be a controlled area for the purposes of the Act. Once a Notification is issued under S. 4 of the Act, S. 6 places a restriction on a person intending to erect or re-erect a building on the area which has been declared as a controlled area. No construction can be made under the Act in the controlled area without following the provisions laid down under the Act.
6. On a plain reading of the S. 4 of the Act, it is clear that if `Brahm Sarovar' is either a public institution or an ancient and historical monument; the Government would be empowered to declare the area around it as a controlled area. The ancient and historical monument contemplated under the Act is not restricted to an ancient and historical monuments which have been declared as such under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (Act XXIV of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the '1958 Act").
7. The expression 'ancient' and 'historical monument' has not been defined under the Act. In the 1958 Act, however, 'ancient monument' has been defined in S.2(a). It reads as follows:--
"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;
the word 'ancient' has been defined in the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, New Edition 1983, as meaning very old of former times of long standing: belonging or relating to times long past. The word' Ancient Monument' has also been denned in the above dictionary as meaning of a building of historical interest scheduled for preservation, in many cases under the care of a Government department.
8. The word 'Monument' has also been defined as follows:--
"anything that preserves the memory of a person or an event, a building, pillar, tomb tablet, statue, etc. any structure, natural or artificial, considered as an object of duty or of interest as a relic of the past : a historic document or record (sometimes confused with muniment) a stone, post, river, etc. marking a boundary."
9. From the above mentioned definitions given in the 1958 Act as well as in the dictionary, it would be apparent that an 'ancient monument' has been given a very wide meaning. It would mean to be any monument which is very old having historic past or record. It can also be a stone, a post, a river etc. The 'Brahm Sarovar' is a very very old historic place and it would clearly come both within the expression of ancient and historical monument, as defined in the 1958 Act, as also within the meaning given in the dictionary mentioned above.
10. It would be appropriate to give a brief history of 'Brahm Sarovar' which is also known as the 'Kurukshetra Tank'. It is well known that Kurukshetra is a place revered all over India for its sacred associations. It was here the battle of Mahabharata was fought and Lord Krishna, the divine source of the song celestial, preached his philosophy of 'unattached action' to Arjuna.
11. Accoridng to Puranas, King Kuru is said to have selected this land on the banks of the sacred river Saraswati. Here only he established the seat for spiritual culture and cultivation of eight-fold virtues namely Austerity (Tapas), Truth, Forgiveness, Kindness, Purity, Charity, Yoga and Continence (Self Control). Thus, the land earned its name Dharmakshetra Kurukshetra.
12. Brahmasar or Kurukshetra tank, as it is locally called, is the centre of interest for the pilgrims as soon as they arrive at the holy land. It is now about 3,860 feet in length and 1,860 feet in breadth. In ancient times there were long flights of steps on four sides of the tank but these exist on the northern and western banks only. The long line of trees on the northern bank and one small island and another big island in the middle of the tank have enhanced its beauty considerably and made it attractive to all the visitors. There are temples and places of Puranic and historical interest in these islands. The smaller one is linked with the Shravan Nath Math (an old Ashram of Sannayasis) by a bridge and the bigger island is linked by another bridge which runs from the middle of the northern bank dividing the tank into two parts. Ruins of some structures standing on the bigger island are said to have been of small castle of Emperor Aurangzeb, who posted armed soldiers here to collect taxes or Jazia from the pilgrims taking bath in the tank and taking its sacred water to their homes. The rates of taxes are said to have been rupee one for a pot of water and rupees five for a bath. Pilgrims found to evade payment of taxes were punished and sometimes shot. This tank is believed to have excavated first by king Kuru long before the epic battle of Mahabharata and it must have undergone great changes in its long life of existence.
13. Mention is also made of 'Brahm Sarovar' in the Vaman Puran, one of the eighteen Puranas which date back to 200 B.C. 500 A. D. The Vamana Puran SM. 11.24 reads as follows: --
vk|a czEglj% iq.;a rrks jkeg`n Le`r% A dq:.kka _f"k.kk d`"V dq:{ks= rr% Le`re AA
14. The Roman script of which is as follows : --
"Adyam Bramsara Punyam Tato Ram-hridah Smrith Karunam Rishina Khshtam Kurukshetram Tetath Smrkam"
15. True English translation of the above reads as under:--
"This holy place known as Brahm Sarovar is as good a source of blisfulness and emancipator of the pains of the saints as is the holy land of Kurukshetra.
In other words, whatever reward one attains by one's holy deeds at Kurukshetra, the same reward is attained at the holy place of Brahm Sarovar."
16. From the above, it is clear that 'Brahm Sarovar' is a very old and historical monument. It would, therefore, clearly come within the expression 'ancient and historical monument.'
17. The word `Public Institution' has not been defined but since this monument is a place meant for the public where admittedly lacs of people visit the monument year after year, it would clearly come under the expression 'Public Institution' also.
18. In the circumstances, we cannot accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. The Notification issued by the Government is a valid notification under S. 4 of the Act. The Appeal is consequently dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. The parties are further directed to appear before the Magistrate Kurukshetra where the criminal complaint is pending on 15th February, 1993.
19. Appeal dismissed.
Alert