State must follow statutory procedures for compulsory acquisition of antiquities and determination of compensation.

The petitioner, Balveer Singh, claimed ancestral ownership and possession of an old cannon

On 16.01.2019, the Additional District Magistrate, Morena, issued a communication directing authorities to seize the cannon and place it in the Shahid Ramprasad Bismil Museum as historical heritage

The petitioner challenged this action under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging that the respondents forcibly took possession without notice, hearing, or following statutory procedures for acquisition and compensation

The State contended the action was a lawful measure for preserving historical artifacts

1. Whether the respondents complied with the mandatory procedural safeguards and compensation requirements under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, and the M.P. Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1964

2. Whether the seizure of the antiquity was supported by a valid order from a competent statutory authority

The court applied Section 19 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, which mandates that compulsory acquisition of an antiquity can only be initiated by the Central Government following notice and the right to object

Section 20 of the same Act regarding the determination and payment of compensation

The court relied on Section 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1964, which authorizes compulsory purchase by the State Government at market value, contingent upon a notice issued by the Director

These statutes recognize proprietary rights and prescribe procedural safeguards before deprivation of possession

The Court observed that the communication dated 16.01.2019 did not disclose the exercise of any valid statutory power under the 1972 or 1964 Acts

Upon perusal of the record, the Court found no evidence of an order passed by the Central or State Governments, no notice issued to the petitioner, and no determination of market value or compensation

The Court reasoned that any state action resulting in the deprivation of property must conform to the procedure prescribed by law; however, it noted that disputed questions of ownership and the factual status of the antiquity could not be conclusively determined in a writ proceeding

Therefore, the Court found it necessary for the competent authority to examine whether the statutory safeguards were bypassed

The Court directed the petitioner to submit a representation within 30 days, which the competent authority must decide via a reasoned and speaking order within a subsequent 30 days to adjudicate ownership, the status of the cannon, and the legality of the seizure under Sections 19 and 20 of the 1972 Act and Section 24 of the 1964 Act

The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs