Bombay High Court Stays Notices For Demolition Within Precincts of Vishalgad Fort, Petitioners Allege Religious Discrimination

“What is your policy?,” Justice Gautam Patel, who heads a division bench, asked after the petitioner’s counsel Pradnya Talekar submitted that some of the tenements were regularised.

“You’ll have to then justify in your affidavit why some of them are regularized,” the court asked the State.

Advocate Akshay Shinde, representing Maharashtra government, said he would file a reply to the petition. The matter has been adjourned to March 10.

The petitioners say they’ve been in possession for over 30-60 years. One of them was allotted land in 1983 and some regularisation applications are pending, the court was told.

However, on December 13, 2022, the Department of Archaeology abruptly issued notices under Section 21 (2) of the Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites Remains Act, 1960 asking them to demolish their structures within 30 day, failing which the demolition drive would be undertaken by the Government.

The petitioners claimed that several fundamentalist organizations and religious groups including the Vishwa Hindu Parishad are behind the proposed demolition as they had recently raised the issue of alleged encroachments by Muslims on the fort site.

The petition points towards the lack of action against alleged Hindu encroachers in the entire Village in Government Gut No. 49. “No demolition is sought to be undertaken against them. This is nothing but selective discrimination on nothing less than religion, thus falling foul of Article 14 as well as 15 of the Constitution of India,” the plea states.

Significantly, the petitioners have contended that the 300 acre Vishalgad Fort precinct was declared a protected monument only in 1999 while petitioners have been residing there since decades. “Since the construction of the buildings is prior to the declaration of the Vishalgad Fort as a protected area, there is no question of the said construction being without Government permission in that regard and therefore, no action under section 21 is sustainable in law,” the plea argues.

In a meeting held before the demolition notices were issued, the petitioners say they were assured of rehabilitation. They would be rendered homeless without any rehabilitation, the plea further states.