Demolition notices quashed subject to an undertaking against unlawful commercial activity pending permission applications.

The petitioners operated guest houses or homestays in villages said to lie within the buffer zone governed by the Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002 (HWHAMA Act).

They had erected structures and were conducting commercial accommodation activities.

The HWHAMA Commissioner issued notices requiring removal or demolition of the structures within 24 hours, alleging commercial use without permission or change of land use.

The petitioners challenged the notices, disputed the alleged violations and undertook not to conduct commercial activities contrary to law; they also offered to apply for the required permissions.

The respondents maintained that the activities were unauthorised, including under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and the HWHAMA Act.

1. Whether the HWHAMA Commissioner’s notices directing removal or demolition of the petitioners’ structures within 24 hours should be quashed

2. Whether the petitioners should be required to seek permissions from the revenue and HWHAMA authorities before undertaking construction, development or other activities on their lands

The Court considered the HWHAMA Act, including its provisions governing “development” and Section 14, under which prior permission is required for construction or development in areas regulated by the Act.

It also considered the explanation to Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which, as invoked by the respondent, restricts use of a farmhouse to personal purposes and does not permit letting it for commercial activities.

The Master Plan, 2021 and applicable regulations were also relevant to the permissibility of the proposed activities.

The Court did not finally determine whether the petitioners’ existing activities or structures complied with these legal requirements; it directed the authorities to decide applications for permission under the applicable law.

The Court recorded the petitioners’ undertaking not to carry on commercial activities contrary to law and their willingness to apply for the necessary permissions.

The HWHAMA’s counsel stated that such applications would be considered and appropriate orders passed under the law.

In light of that undertaking and the proposed application process, the Court quashed the impugned notices while requiring the petitioners to seek permission from the relevant authorities.

It left the merits of any proposed construction, development or activity to those authorities, preserving their power to act in the event of a breach.

The impugned notices were quashed in view of the petitioners’ undertaking not to conduct commercial activities contrary to law.

The petitioners were directed to apply to the revenue authorities and the competent HWHAMA authority within 15 days of receiving the certified order; the authorities were directed to decide the applications within 60 days, with a hearing or spot inspection if considered necessary.

The authorities were restrained from taking precipitative action pending consideration of the applications, without prejudice to their power to take lawful action for any breach of the undertaking or applicable law.