The SC directed the ASI to examine whether a part of the bungalow owned by sarod mastero Ustad Amjad Ali Khan near the historic "Lal Gumbad" here violated the provisions of the Ancient Monuments Act.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to examine whether a part of the bungalow owned by sarod mastero Ustad Amjad Ali Khan near the historic "Lal Gumbad" here violated the provisions of the Ancient Monuments Act.
A bench of Justices B N Aggrawal and P P Naolekar, however, refused to entertain the plea of the family for a direction to the MCD to de-seal the premises.
The apex court asked the ASI to grant within four weeks a "no objection" certificate for the bungalow if it was found that the building did not in any manner violate the provisions of the Act.
The bench passed the directions on an application moved by Subhlakshmi Khan, wife of the sarod mastero challenging the sealing of the bungalow located at Sadhna Enclave, South Delhi, situated near the "Lal Gumbad".
According to Subhlakshmi, the family had constructed the bunglow way back in 1988 and also obtained a completion certificate in 1989 from the authorities concerned.
But in December 2006, the MCD officials without prior intimation sealed the second floor of the bunglow and certain other portions, on the charge that the constructions were made in violation of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeolgoical Sites and Remains Act and Rules 1958.
Under the said Central Act, there cannot be any construction activities in an area upto 100 metres from a protected monument like "Lal Gumbad" without the prior approval of the ASI and other authorities concerned.
The family claimed that after the premises was sealed, it made several applications to the ASI for obtaining a "no-objection" certificate but the latter has failed to respond so far, and hence it was compelled to approach the apex court.
Subhlakshmi also urged the court to order de-sealing of the premises until the ASI gave its findings, but the plea was opposed by MCD counsel Sanjiv Sen.
However, the apex court refrained from passing any orders for de-sealing of the premises.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=spacer}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}