Introduction:
The timeless marble of the Taj Mahal casts a long shadow over the question of private property rights in Bharat. The recent Supreme Court judgment in the Thakur Rangji Maharaj Virajman Mandir case brought this monumental conflict to a head. At stake was a Temple Trust’s land, essential for the Archaeological Survey of India’s protective green belt around the monument. The court was forced to reconcile individual ownership with the paramount requirement of heritage conservation under the AMASR Act. This landmark ruling interprets the Act to compel the government to provide compensation for ‘loss or damage’ resulting from preservation-driven land restrictions, thus striking a crucial balance between national interest and the fundamental rights of its citizens.
Basic Details
Court: Supreme Court
Title of the case: Thakur Rangji Maharaj Virajman Mandir, Vrindavan vs Union Of India Thr. Its Secretary & Ors.
Date of judgment: 20 March, 2025
Author: Abhay S. Oka
Bench: Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan
Case no.: Civil Appeal No.10737/2013 (This case took near about 12 years to be decided. Such delay in justice is denial of justice and hence reform in judicial process is needed for speedy delivery of justice)
Type of matter: Civil Appeal
Name of parties:
Petitioner: Thakur Rangji Maharaj Virajman Mandir, Vrindavan
Respondent: Union Of India Thr. Its Secretary & Ors.
Land in subject matter: bearing Khasra No.11 (Area 3 Bigha, 1 Biswa), Khevat No.1, situated at Mauza Basai, Tehsil and District Agra. (“said land” for short)
Issue of the Case: Said land being used by the respondent for beautification of Taj Mahal. After filing suit for injunction, courts did not grant relief of injunction.
Acts discussed: Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Site and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASRA)
Precedent referred: WP No.13381/1984 M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors., Dt. 4th September, 1998
Cause of Second Appeal:
As appellant didn’t get relief of injunction, the appellant trust preferred second appeal praying for damages ought to have been awarded. This prayer was made in the light of what is recorded in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment of suit Dt. 10th January, 2024 which reads thus:
“Upon perusal of the aforesaid orders, there is no doubt that development of a green belt over the disputed land has been undertaken by the Archaeological Survey of India, in furtherance/implementation of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time, therefore, no exception can be taken. On these facts no perversity could be attached to the view taken by the courts below in dismissing the suit.”
Reply of ASI:
ASI carried out work of removal of vegetation growth, accumulated garbage and silt deposited during the rainy season, dung of cattle and other undesirable materials in the year 2004. Thereafter, the landscaping activity/green belt is initiated. The land measuring 7030 square meters is completely free from any activity of ASI except that it has to be maintained as a green belt. The land is fenced to prevent entry of cattle. ASI has relied upon Section 20A of the AMASRA and on M. C. Mehta case. It was submitted that all construction activities within 500 meters of area of Taj Mahal have been prohibited and this buffer zone of the 500 meters is to be used for the purpose of improving environmental conditions in the vicinity of Taj Mahal.
Interpretation and Application of Section 20A:
Taj Mahal is a protected monument, therefore in terms of Section 20A(1), the area to a distance of 100 meters in all directions of Taj Mahal is a prohibited area. There is a power vesting in the proviso to sub-section (1) in the Central Government to specify an area more than 100 meters to be prohibited area having regard to the classification of any protected monument as the case may be under Section 4A. As the said land is covered by prohibited area of 100 meters, there is a restriction on use of the land as provided in Section 20A. Although there is restriction on the use of land covered under protected area, there no provision in AMASRA which compels ASI or the Government to acquire the area governed by Section 20A(1).
Interpretation and Application of Section 27:
Section 27 provides that the owner or occupier of the land who has sustained any loss or damage or any diminution of profits due to exercise of any other power conferred by AMASRA, shall be paid compensation by the Central Government for the extent of such loss, damage etc. The present case would be governed by this part of Section 27 where the appellant will have to be compensated for the loss or damage or diminution, if any, caused due to restrictions imposed under Section 20A(1) of AMASRA.
Interpretation and Application of Section 28:
Section 28 provides that the compensation in terms of Section 27 of AMASRA shall be computed in the manner laid down therein. Hence compensation can be claimed by the land owner u/s 27 read with Section 28 of AMASRA. While determining the compensation, the concerned authority of the Union of India will bear in mind that the restrictions were applicable under Section 20A from 4th September, 1998.
Order of Court:
(i) The Union of India shall determine the compensation payable to the appellant in terms of Section 27 of AMASRA in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 28 thereof; and
(ii) The compensation shall be determined and paid within a period of six months from today.
(iii) Appellant shall urge the issue of compensation as per Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 before the competent authority of the Union of India.
As per provisions of AMASRA, when an action is to be taken in accordance to any other enactment, old repealed statutes are mentioned. Do you think it is necessary to amend AMASRA for better administration of the Act read with other provisions as and when needed? Comment your opinion and start a discussion.
Share this article. Bookmark this site. Read daily to update your legal knowledge.