Balveer Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18075
1 WP-15481-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
rd
ON THE 23 OF JUNE, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 15481 of 2019
BALVEER SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Maheshwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rinkesh Goyal - Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India calling in question the action of the respondents in
taking possession of an old cannon claimed by the petitioner and placing the
same in the Shahid Ramprasad Bismil Museum, Morena pursuant to
communication dated 16.01.2019 issued by the Additional District
Magistrate, Morena.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in
possession of the cannon by virtue of succession from his ancestors but the
respondents, acting upon an application submitted by a private individual,
proceeded to take possession of the cannon without notice, without affording
any opportunity of hearing and without following the procedure prescribed
under law. It is contended that the action of the respondents is contrary to the
provisions of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 as well as the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/25/2026
10:46:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18075
2 WP-15481-2019
Madhya Pradesh Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains

Act, 1964.
It is further submitted that under Section 19 of the Antiquities and Art
Treasures Act, 1972, compulsory acquisition of an antiquity can be
undertaken only pursuant to an order passed by the Central Government and
thereafter, notice is required to be issued to the owner and an opportunity is
provided to raise objections against such acquisition. The statute further
contemplates payment of compensation in accordance with Section 20
thereof. None of the aforesaid statutory requirements have been complied
with in the present case.
It is further submitted that even under Section 24 of the Madhya
Pradesh Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act,
1964, compulsory purchase of an antiquity can be undertaken only by the
State Government at market value and upon issuance of notice by the
Director. No order of compulsory purchase, no notice and no determination
of market value or compensation preceded the impugned action.
Per contra, learned Govt. for the State opposed the prayer and
submitted that the action impugned has been taken in accordance with law
for preservation of a valuable historical artefact, and therefore, no
interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is accordingly
prayed that the petition be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
material available on record, this Court finds that the communication dated
16.01.2019 issued by the Additional District Magistrate merely directs the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/25/2026
10:46:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18075
3 WP-15481-2019
concerned authorities to coordinate for placing the cannon in a museum as a

historical heritage object with an appropriate nameplate. The communication
does not, prima facie, disclose exercise of statutory power either under
Section 19 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 or under Section
24 of the Madhya Pradesh Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and
Remains Act, 1964.
A plain reading of Section 19 of the Act of 1972 demonstrates that
compulsory acquisition of an antiquity can be initiated only by the Central
Government. The provision further envisages issuance of notice to the
owner, a right of objection, consideration of such objection and
consequential determination of compensation under Section 20 of the Act.
Similarly, Section 24 of the Act of 1964 authorizes compulsory purchase by
the State Government at market value and contemplates issuance of notice by
the Director. The legislative scheme under both enactments thus recognizes
the proprietary rights of the person in possession of the antiquity and
prescribes procedural safeguards before the State can deprive such person of
possession thereof.
The record available before this Court does not indicate existence of
any order passed by the Central Government under Section 19 of the Act of
1972 or by the State Government under Section 24 of the Act of 1964. There
is also no material to indicate issuance of notice to the petitioner,
determination of compensation or market value, or compliance with the
statutory safeguards embodied in the aforesaid provisions.
At the same time, the legality of the seizure cannot be conclusively
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/25/2026
10:46:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18075
4 WP-15481-2019
adjudicated in the present proceedings since disputed questions relating to

ownership of the cannon, its status as an antiquity, the circumstances in
which possession was taken and the competing claims of interested parties
would require factual examination by the competent authority. This Court,
therefore, refrains from recording any final finding on such disputed issues.
Nevertheless, this Court is of the considered view that any action
resulting in deprivation of possession of an antiquity must be traceable to a
valid source of statutory authority and must conform to the procedure
prescribed by law. The continued retention of the cannon by the authorities
without a clear determination regarding the source of power under which
possession was taken and without examining compliance with the statutory
safeguards cannot be permitted to remain unaddressed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be
served by relegating the petitioner to the competent authority for a
comprehensive examination of all issues arising from the impugned action.
Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to submit a detailed
representation, together with all relevant documents and supporting material,
before the respondent competent authority within a period of 30 days from
today. Upon receipt of such representation, the competent authority shall
examine:
(i) the claim of ownership raised by the petitioner;
(ii) the status of the cannon under the applicable statutory
framework;
(iii) the authority under which possession of the cannon was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/25/2026
10:46:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18075
5 WP-15481-2019
taken;

(iv) whether the requirements of Sections 19 and 20 of the
Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 and Section 24 of the
Madhya Pradesh Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites
and Remains Act, 1964 have been complied with; and
(v) the consequential entitlement of the petitioner to
restoration of possession, compensation or any other relief
permissible in law.
The competent authority shall afford an opportunity of hearing to all
affected parties and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order in
accordance with law preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of
receipt of the representation.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any final opinion on
the merits of the rival claims and all questions of fact and law are left open
for consideration by the competent authority.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands
disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/25/2026
10:46:24 AM