Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sri. Lakshmi Golden Beach Resort, a registered partnership firm, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging an endorsement dated 28.07.2010 issued by the Commissioner, Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority (Respondent No.1), which rejected the appellant's application for permission to construct a resort in the heritage area. The appellant sought a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the running of the resort. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 13.02.2020, leading to the present intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the construction was started after obtaining necessary approvals from the local panchayat and other authorities, and that the Heritage Authority had no jurisdiction to stop the construction. The respondents contended that the Hampi World Heritage Area is a protected area under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, and the Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002, and that any construction requires prior permission from the Heritage Authority. The Division Bench, after hearing the parties, held that the appellant had not obtained the mandatory permission from the Heritage Authority, and the construction was therefore illegal. The court rejected the appellant's argument of legitimate expectation, stating that no one can claim a right to continue illegal construction. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Single Judge's order.
Headnote
A) Heritage Law - Unauthorized Construction - Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002 - Sections 4, 5, 6 - The appellant constructed a resort without obtaining permission from the Heritage Authority, which is mandatory under the Act. The court held that the construction was illegal and the endorsement rejecting the application was valid. (Paras 1-10) B) Administrative Law - Legitimate Expectation - No vested right to continue illegal construction - The appellant's claim of legitimate expectation based on previous permissions was rejected as the construction was in violation of heritage laws. (Paras 11-15) C) Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - High Court under Article 226 - The Single Judge correctly dismissed the writ petition as the appellant had no legal right to seek mandamus against the authorities for illegal construction. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant's resort construction in Hampi World Heritage Area without obtaining permission from the Heritage Authority is lawful, and whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition challenging the endorsement dated 28.07.2010.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the Single Judge dated 13.02.2020 in Writ Petition No.65875/2010 is affirmed.
Law Points
- Doctrine of legitimate expectation
- Principle of natural justice
- Unauthorized construction in heritage area
- Maintainability of writ petition against government authority
