Heritage-area occupants remain subject to Master Plan restrictions and regulatory enforcement.

The petitioners challenged several communications dated 18 November 2017 issued by the Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority (HWHAMA), seeking their quashing.

Their counsel submitted that the premises were in the core zone regulated by the Master Plan-2021, that the petitioners would not undertake commercial activities other than traditional Purohit and Archaka work and incidental convenience shops, and that they would permit inspections and regulation by HWHAMA and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

The petitioners sought application of the directions issued by a Division Bench in CCC No. 126/2017 c/w W.P. No. 111194/2017 and connected matters.

1. Whether the Division Bench’s directions in the connected matters should be made applicable to these petitioners.

2. Whether the challenged communications should be quashed subject to the petitioners’ compliance with the Master Plan-2021.

The Court applied the Division Bench’s directions in CCC No. 126/2017 c/w W.P. No. 111194/2017 and connected matters, which required the petitioners there to comply with the Master Plan-2021 and prohibited activities contrary to it, while allowing HWHAMA and ASI to oversee, inspect, regulate, and take appropriate action in case of violations.

The judgment identifies no separate statutory provision or other precedent as the basis for its decision; the petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The petitioners and HWHAMA agreed that the Division Bench’s directions could govern this petition.

The Court therefore disposed of the petition on the same terms, balancing the petitioners’ stated traditional activities with the requirement to protect Hampi’s heritage by ensuring compliance with the Master Plan-2021. It preserved HWHAMA’s and ASI’s authority to act in the event of a violation.

It directed that the petitioners must not carry out activities contrary to the Master Plan-2021 and confirmed that HWHAMA and ASI may take action in accordance with the Division Bench’s directions.