Demolition notices quashed; coercive action barred pending permission decisions under petitioners’ undertaking.

The petitioners claimed ownership or occupation of lands in Sanapura and Hanumanahalli villages, stated to fall within the buffer zone governed by the Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002 (“HWHAMA Act”).

They were operating guest houses or homestays, including in thatched-roof structures. The Tahsildar issued notices requiring removal or demolition of the structures within 24 hours, alleging commercial use without necessary permission or change of land use.

The petitioners challenged the notices, disputed the alleged violations, and relied on prior no-objection documents issued by the HWHAMA.

They undertook not to carry on commercial activities contrary to law and offered to apply for the required permissions; the HWHAMA’s counsel stated that such applications would be considered in accordance with law.

Whether the Tahsildar’s notices requiring removal or demolition of the petitioners’ structures within 24 hours should be quashed in light of the petitioners’ undertaking not to carry on commercial activities contrary to law.

Whether the petitioners should be directed to seek the necessary permissions from the revenue and HWHAMA authorities, and whether coercive action should be deferred while those applications are considered.

The judgment refers to the HWHAMA Act, 2002, including its provisions concerning “development” and Section 14, and to the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, including the explanation to Section 95; the Master Plan, 2021 and applicable regulations are also mentioned.

The HWHAMA’s counsel submitted that construction or development within a regulated zone required prior permission and that farmhouses could not be let for commercial use under the explanation to Section 95.

The Court did not decide the substantive scope or application of those provisions. It disposed of the petitions on the petitioners’ undertaking and directed the authorities to consider applications for permission in accordance with law.

The Court recorded the petitioners’ undertaking not to conduct commercial activities contrary to the applicable laws and the HWHAMA’s submission that applications for permission would be considered in accordance with law.

In those circumstances, it quashed the notices but required the petitioners to apply to the relevant revenue and HWHAMA authorities for permission to construct, develop, or undertake any legally permissible activity.

The Court did not determine whether the existing structures or commercial activities complied with the cited statutes or planning controls; it preserved the authorities’ power to act if the undertaking or applicable law was breached.

The petitioners were directed to file the necessary applications within 15 days of receiving the certified order, and the competent authorities were directed to decide them within 60 days thereafter, with a hearing or site inspection if considered necessary.

The authorities were restrained from taking precipitative action until the applications were considered, without prejudice to their power to act in accordance with law if the petitioners breached their undertaking or applicable legal requirements.