JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. H. Buragohain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions. Ms. A. Gayan, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5; Ms. N. Bordoloi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Revenue Department and Mr. N. Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the District Administration, Sivasagar. PREFACE 2. The petitioners in WP(C) No.7322/2015 have assailed the notice dated 10.11.2015 issued by the Authorized Signatory of the Archaeological Survey of India as well as for consequential reliefs. The petitioner in WP(C) No.7235/2015 has assailed the notice dated 10.11.2015 issued by the Authorized Signatory of the Archaeological Survey of India as well as for consequential reliefs. By the notices dated 10.11.2015, impugned in both the writ petitions, the Authorized Signatory had directed the petitioners in both the writ petitions to remove the unauthorized building/construction within seven days of the receipt of the notice, failing which the Central Government shall in exercise of its powers under Rule 38 (2) of the ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND REMAINS RULES , 1959 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1959’) cause the unauthorized building construction to be removed at his/her/their costs and expenses through the District Administration. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE WP(C) No.7322/2015 3. The predecessor-in-interest of the substituted petitioners herein was the occupier of a plot of land admeasuring 1 bigha 2 kathas 10 lechas under Dag No.123 (Part) since 1933 with dwelling houses thereon in Phukan Phodia Village, Gaurisagar under Mora Bazar Mouza of Sivasagar District. During the lifetime of the father of the original petitioner, he applied for settlement of the land under his possession from the State Government. Recommendations were made by the Competent Authorities for settlement of a plot of land admeasuring 1 bigha 2 kathas 10 lechas of land under Dag No. 123 (Part) in favour of the original petitioner’s father. However, the Government of Assam settled only 2 kathas 10 lechas of land under Dag No.123 (Part) vide an order dated 11.09.1979. However, the said settlement so made in favour of the original petitioner’s father was revoked vide an order dated 27.10.1979. However, the Government of Assam settled only 2 kathas 10 lechas of land under Dag No.123 (Part) vide an order dated 11.09.1979. However, the said settlement so made in favour of the original petitioner’s father was revoked vide an order dated 27.10.1979. This revocation of the settlement so made in favour of the original petitioner’s father was put to challenge by filing a writ petition by the original petitioner’s father along with one Betharam Bairagi, who is the father of the petitioner in WP(C) No.7235/2015. The said writ petition was registered and numbered as Civil Rule No. 939/1983. The reason for cancelling the settlement vide order dated 27.10.1979 in the case of the original petitioner's father was that the land was within the prohibited area. 4. The learned Division Bench of this Court by a judgment and order dated 02.07.1990 interfered with the order of cancellation dated 27.10.1979 opining from the cadastral map that the land which was settled in favour of the original petitioner's father was far away from the banks of Gaurisagar intervened by Dag Nos.133, 134 & 135. It was also observed that Dag No.123 was away from the bank of Gaurisagar Tank and outside the area of Devidol and Vishnudol. It is pertinent at this stage to note that in the judgment and order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court dated 02.07.1990, the provisions of the ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND REMAINS ACT , 1958 (for short, ‘the Act of 1958’) as well as the Rules framed therein under or the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 (for short, ‘the Act of 1904’) were not taken into consideration. The reason being that the Notification dated 16.06.1992 declaring the prohibited area issued by the Central Government was issued subsequent to the passing of the judgment by the learned Division Bench. 5. The records further reveal that pursuant to the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench dated 02.07.1990, the father of the original petitioner as well as the father of the petitioner in WP(C) No.7235/2015 were issued Periodic Pattas. In the case of the father of the original petitioner, the land settled was renumbered as land covered by Dag No.1268 of Patta No.478 of Village Phukan Phodia Village, Gaurisagar under Mora Bazar Mouza in the district of Sivasagar, Assam. In the case of the father of the original petitioner, the land settled was renumbered as land covered by Dag No.1268 of Patta No.478 of Village Phukan Phodia Village, Gaurisagar under Mora Bazar Mouza in the district of Sivasagar, Assam. The records further reveal that the original petitioner along with his three brothers were issued a notice on 07.05.2008 by the respondent No.5 informing that there was an ongoing construction on the first floor of the building within the prohibited area of Devi Dol, Gaurisagar thereby violating the Government of India Gazette Notification No.S.O. 1764 dated 16.06.1992 issued under the provisions of the Act of 1958 and the Rules of 1959 which did not permit any construction activities within the prohibited area (100 meters from the protected limit) of the centrally protected monument. 6. The original petitioner, upon receipt of the same, submitted a communication dated 15.05.2008 stating inter alia that the permanent construction of the residential building was started in the year 1990 and the first floor construction of the residential building was going on. It was also mentioned that there were various other constructions carried out within the prohibited area around Shivadol and Vishnudol of Gaurisagar and the construction of the first floor was made to meet the family requirements. 7. The records further reveal that the original petitioner thereupon approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.2169/2008 challenging the communication dated 07.05.2008 issued by the respondent No.5 herein. The learned Coordinate Bench vide the order dated 30.05.2008 issued notice and stayed that the communication dated 07.05.2008. 8. It is further relevant to take note of the fact that another show cause notice was issued on 23.08.2011 by the Respondent No.5 to the original petitioner thereby asking the original petitioner to show cause within seven days from the date of issue of the said notice as to why under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 38 of the Rules of 1959, an order should not be passed to remove the said constructions which had been carried out unauthorizedly. A reply thereagainst was filed on 28.09.2011 wherein it was mentioned that a writ petition was pending in respect to the notice dated 07.05.2008. 9. It is also relevant to take into consideration that vide an order dated 17.07.2014, the writ petition being WP(C) No.2169/2008 was dismissed for non-prosecution. 10. A reply thereagainst was filed on 28.09.2011 wherein it was mentioned that a writ petition was pending in respect to the notice dated 07.05.2008. 9. It is also relevant to take into consideration that vide an order dated 17.07.2014, the writ petition being WP(C) No.2169/2008 was dismissed for non-prosecution. 10. Subsequent thereto, the impugned notice was issued on 10.11.2015 whereby the petitioner was granted 7 days time to remove the unauthorized building/construction failing which the Central Government shall in exercise of the powers under Rule 38 (2) of the Rules of 1959 cause the unauthorized building or construction to be removed at the original petitioner's cost and expenses through the District Administration. It is under such circumstances, the original petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 11. This Court vide an order dated 02.12.2015 while issuing notice stayed the impugned notice dated 10.11.2015. The interim order thereupon has been extended from time to time. WP(C) No.7235/2015 12. The petitioner is the son of Late Betharam Bairagi who was settled with a plot of land admeasuring 2 kathas 10 lechas which was covered by Dag No.1041 (Part). This settlement which was made on 11.09.1979 was cancelled vide an order dated 27.10.1979. As already stated herein above, the father of the petitioner in WP(C) No.7322/2015 jointly filed the writ petition along with the father of the present writ petitioner challenging the order dated 27.10.1979 in Civil Rule No.939/1983. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Division Bench of this Court vide the judgment dated 02.07.1990 wherein it was held that the land which was settled in question vide the order dated 11.09.1979 was outside the area of Devidol and Vishnudol. The father of the petitioner thereupon was granted the settlement and the land under his occupation was converted from Dag No.1041 (Part) to Periodic Patta No.477 of Dag No.1267, of Village Phukan Phodia Village, Gaurisagar under Mora Bazar Mouza in the district of Sivasagar, Assam. 13. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner herein was issued a notice on 23.08.2011 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the unauthorized construction carried out by him should not be demolished. A reply was submitted stating inter alia that his father himself started the construction of the house in the year 1991 and some finishing work was going on in the year 1996. A reply was submitted stating inter alia that his father himself started the construction of the house in the year 1991 and some finishing work was going on in the year 1996. Additionally, it was stated that the house of the petitioner was not a two-storied building but a one-storied one. It was also mentioned that although a notice was received to stop construction, but the construction work of the home had already been finished. 14. The petitioner was issued the impugned notice dated 10.11.2015. It is under such circumstances that the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition and this Court vide an order dated 26.11.2015 while issuing notice, stayed the impugned notice dated 10.11.2015. The interim order thereupon has been extended from time to time. STAND OF THE RESPONDENTS 15. The record reveals that the respondents herein have filed an affidavit-in-opposition in WP(C) No.7322/2015. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, the Assam Gazette dated 11.08.1937 was enclosed as Annexure-I. A perusal of the said Assam Gazette reveals that vide a Notification dated 03.08.1937 Vishnudol, Shivadol and Devidol were declared as protected monuments under the Act of 1904. It is also seen from the said affidavit-in- opposition that the original petitioner in WP(C) No.7322/2015 was issued notice not to carry out any construction way back on 28.05.2006. Thereupon, various other notices were issued on 07.05.2007 and 10.10.2008 to stop construction and ultimately on 10.11.2015, the impugned notice was issued. It was also mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition that a show cause notice was issued on 23.08.2011. Additionally, the respondents have stated that not only against the petitioners, but various other steps have been taken against other persons also regarding violation of the Notification dated 16.06.1992. The documentary evidences in that regard have also enclosed to the affidavit-in-opposition. 16. The petitioners in WP(C) No.7322/2015 have filed an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents reaffirming and reiterating their contentions in the writ petition. ISSUE 17. The Issue involved in both the writ petitions is as to whether the impugned notices both dated 10.11.2015 are required to be interfered with in exercise of the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution? SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES. 18. Mr. ISSUE 17. The Issue involved in both the writ petitions is as to whether the impugned notices both dated 10.11.2015 are required to be interfered with in exercise of the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution? SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES. 18. Mr. H. Buragohain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions submitted that in the judgment and order dated 02.07.1990 in Civil Rule No.939/1983, the lands which were allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of both the petitioners, i.e. Dag No.123 and Dag No.1041 were held to be outside the area of Devidol and Vishnudol. He, therefore, submitted that under such circumstances, the Respondent Authorities could not have initiated any action against the petitioners as it is a finding of fact arrived at by this Court in the judgment dated 02.07.1990. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that Rule 31 of the Rules of 1959 postulates the manner in which a declaration is to be made of a prohibited and a regulated area. He submitted that this procedure which is to be initiated is akin to a proceedings under the land acquisition proceedings in as much as the rights of a person under Article 300A of the Constitution would be affected if the manner stipulated in the Rules of 1959 are not followed. He submitted that there was no such Notification whereby the land of the petitioners was mentioned prior to fixing the prohibited and the regulated area, and as such, the impugned notices both dated 10.11.2015 are required to be interfered with. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the alternative submitted that questions of fact arises as to whether the constructions were completed prior to coming into force of the Notification dated 16.06.1992 and if opportunities are given to the petitioners, they would be able to demonstrate that the constructions do not infringe upon the Act of 1958, the Rules of 1959 as well as the Notification dated 16.06.1992. 21. Ms. A. Gayan, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5, on the other hand, submitted that in terms with the Act of 1904 the ancient monuments, i.e. Vishnudol, Shivadol and Devidol have been declared to be protected monuments as far back on 03.08.1937. 21. Ms. A. Gayan, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5, on the other hand, submitted that in terms with the Act of 1904 the ancient monuments, i.e. Vishnudol, Shivadol and Devidol have been declared to be protected monuments as far back on 03.08.1937. She further submitted that the submission so made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the mandate of Rules 31, 32 & 33 of the Rules of 1959 have not been followed is completely misconceived, taking into account that the Notification in terms with Rule 31 of the Rules of 1959 was issued as far back on 15.05.1991 which was published in the Gazette of India, Part-II on 25.05.1991. The learned CGC further submitted that in pursuance thereto, the Notification dated 16.06.1992 was issued thereby notifying that an area of 100 meters from the protected limits and further beyond it up to 200 meters near or adjoining the protected monuments to be prohibited and regulated areas respectively for the purpose of both mining operation and construction. The learned CGC therefore submitted that all these constructions admittedly have taken place after the Notification dated 16.06.1992, and as such, all the constructions are in violation to the mandate of the Notification dated 16.06.1992 as well as the provisions of the Rules of 1959. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 22. The Act of 1904 empowers the Central Government to declare an ancient monument to be a protected monument within the meaning of the Act of 1904. The manner in which it is required to be done had been stipulated in Section 3 of the said Act. A Notification was published in the Assam Gazette on 11.08.1937 notifying that on 03.08.1937, Vishnudol, Shivadol and Devidol in the locality of Gourisagar were declared as protected monuments. The relevant portion of the said Notification is reproduced herein under:- The 3 rd August 1937. No.1940-E.- Under section 3 , sub-section (3) of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 (VII of 1904) read with paragraph 8 of the India and Burma (Transitory Provisions) Order, 1937, the Governor of Assam is pleased to confirm Notification No.261E., dated the 28 th January 1937, published in the Assam Gazette of the 3 rd February 1937, in which the following ancient monuments in the district of Sibsagar were declared to be protected monuments within the meaning of the said Act. 23. 23. The Act of 1904 was repealed by the Act of 1958, however, saving those things done or omitted to have been done before the commencement of the Act of 1958. Therefore, with the coming into effect of the Act of 1958 and on account of the saving by Section 39 of the Act of 1958, the Notification dated 03.08.1937 still holds the field. 24. This Court now finds it very pertinent to note that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 38 of the Act of 1958, the Rules of 1959 were made. Rule 2(f) defines “prohibited area” as well as “regulated area” to mean an area near or adjoining a protected monument which the Central Government has by Notification in the Official Gazette declared to be a prohibited area or as the case may be, a regulated area for the purpose of mining operation or construction or both. 25. The manner in which an area can be declared to come within the ambit of “prohibited area” or “regulated area” have been mentioned in Chapter VII of the Rules of 1959. 26. Rule 31 of the Rules of 1959 stipulates that before declaring an area near or adjoining a protected monument to be a “prohibited area” or a “regulated area” for the purpose of mining operation or construction or both, the Central Government shall by Notification in the Official Gazette give one month's notice of its intention to do so and a copy of such Notification shall be affixed in a conspicuous place near the area. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 of the Rules of 1959 further stipulates that such Notification shall specify the limits of the area which is to be so declared and shall also call for objection, if any, from the interested persons. 27. Rule 32 of the Rules of 1959 further stipulate that after the expiry of one month from the date of the Notification under Rule 31 of the Rules of 1959 and after considering the objections, if any, received within the said period, the Central Government may declare by Notification in the Official Gazette the area specified in the Notification under Rule 31 of the Rules of 1959 or any part of such area to be “prohibited area” or as the case may be to be a “regulated area” for the purpose of mining operation or construction or both. 28. 28. Rule 33 of the Rules of 1959 further stipulates the effect of such declaration in so far as it relates to “prohibited area” or “regulated area”. It stipulates that no person other than an Archaeological Officer shall undertake any mining operation or any construction in a prohibited area. In so far as the regulated area is concerned, no person other than an Archaeological Officer shall undertake any mining operation or any construction except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a license granted by the Director General. The above Rule therefore makes it clear that under no circumstances there can be mining or construction in a prohibited area. The exception only being that an Archaeological Officer can only do so. However, in respect to regulated area, construction can be carried out, but with a license granted by the Director General. 29. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of Rule 38 of the Rules of 1959 which empowers the Central Government to direct removal of unauthorized buildings in a prohibited area or in a regulated area or a building or part thereof which have been constructed in contravention of any of the conditions of license granted under Rule 35 of the Rules of 1959 and to remove such building or part thereof within a period specified in that order. 30. In the backdrop of the above, it is relevant to take note of the fact that on 15.05.1991, in terms with Rule 31 of the Rules of 1959, a Notification was issued which was published in the Gazette of India on 25.05.1991. Pursuant thereto, in terms with Rule 32 of the Rules of 1959, a Notification was issued on 16.06.1992 which was published in the Gazette of India on 04.07.1992. In terms with the Notification dated 16.06.1992, the Central Government declared an area up to 100 meters from the protected limits and further beyond it up to 200 meters near or adjoining the protected monument to be prohibited and regulated area respectively for the purpose of both mining operation and construction. For the purpose of the instant proceedings, it is relevant to reproduce the said notification as herein under:- “DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE (Archaeological Survey of India), New Delhi, th the 16 June, 1992 (Archeology). S.O.1764, dated 16 th June, 1992. For the purpose of the instant proceedings, it is relevant to reproduce the said notification as herein under:- “DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE (Archaeological Survey of India), New Delhi, th the 16 June, 1992 (Archeology). S.O.1764, dated 16 th June, 1992. —Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Department of Culture, Archaeological Survey of India No. S.O. 1447 dated the 15th May 1991, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii) dated the 25th May 1991, the Central Government gave one month’s notice of its intention to declare areas upto 100 meters from the protected limits and further beyond it upto 200 meters near or adjoining protected monuments to be prohibited and regulated areas respectively for purposes of both mining operation and construction: And whereas the said Gazette was made available to the public on the 5th June. 1991; And whereas objections to the making of such declaration received from the person interested in the said areas have been considered by the Central Government. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by rule 32 of the ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND REMAINS RULES , 1959, the Central Government hereby declares the said areas to be prohibited and regulated areas. This shall be in addition to and not in any way prejudice the similar declarations already made in respect of monuments at Fatehpur Sikri; Mahabalipuram; Golconda Fort, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh); Thousand Pillared Temple, Hanamkonda, District Warangal (Andhra Pradesh); Sher Shah’s Tomb, Sasaram (Bihar); Rock Edict of Ashoka, Kopbal, District Raichur (Karnataka); Fort Wall, Bijapur (Karnataka); Gomateswara Statue at Sravanbelgola, District Hassan (Karnataka); Elephanata Caves, Gharapuri, District Kolaba (Maharashtra).” 31. The resultant effect of the said Notification dated 16.06.1992 is that an area up to 100 meters from the protected limits of the Devidol would be a prohibited area and further beyond and up to 200 meters near or adjoining the protected monument would be a regulated area. 32. At this stage, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the submission of Mr. 32. At this stage, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the submission of Mr. H Buragohain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners who submitted that the learned Division Bench of this Court in the judgment and order dated 02.07.1990 in Civil Rule No.939/1983 had observed that the Dags being Dag Nos.123 (Part) & 1041 which were allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners were outside the area of Devidol and Vishnudol. The said submission though at the first glance appears to be a fair point made, but it is important to note that the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench was delivered on 02.07.1990 and the Notification under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1959 was notified on 16.06.1992. Under such circumstances, the said submission is completely misplaced and is only to be rejected. 33. This Court also finds it very pertinent to take note of the submission so made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that the procedure as mandated under Rules 31 & 32 of the Rules of 1959 were not followed. It is the opinion of this Court that a perusal of the Notification dated 16.06.1992 itself clearly shows that there was a Notification so issued on 15.05.1991 which was duly published in the Gazette of India on 25.05.1991 and thereafter the notification was issued on 16.06.1992. The said submission therefore is completely misconceived and accordingly rejected. Apart from that, there being no challenge to the Notification dated 16.06.1992, the said submission cannot be accepted. 34. At this stage, this Court finds it important to observe that vide the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment) Act 2010, various noteworthy changes were carried out to the Act of 1958. The concept of "prohibited area" and "regulated area" got further elaborated. The said two expressions were defined in Section 2(ha) and 2(d) respectively. In addition to that, Sections 20A to 20Q were inserted. Sections 20A and 20B were given retrospective effect from the date of the Notification dated 16.06.1992 as would be seen from Section 4 and Section 6 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010. In addition to that, Sections 20A to 20Q were inserted. Sections 20A and 20B were given retrospective effect from the date of the Notification dated 16.06.1992 as would be seen from Section 4 and Section 6 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010. However, Sections 20C to 20Q of the Act of 1958 were given effect to from 29.03.2010, i.e. the date when the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010 received the assent of the President. 35. The Supreme Court in the case of Archaeological Survey of India vs. Narender Anand , reported in (2012) 2 SCC 562 , dealt with the scope of Section 20A and Section 20B of the Act of 1958 in detail. The observations of the Supreme Court being relevant are reproduced herein below. Paragraph Nos.45 to 51 are quoted herein under:- “ 45. What has been done by enacting Sections 20-A and 20-B is to give legislative mandate to the concept of prohibited and regulated areas respectively for the purposes of mining operation and construction. Before the 2010 Amendment, the Central Government could issue notification under Rule 31 read with Rule 32 and declare an area near or adjoining a protected monument to be a prohibited area or a regulated area for the purposes of mining operation or construction or both. With the insertion of Section 20-A it has been made clear that every area, beginning at the limit of the protected area or the protected monument, as the case may be, and extending to a distance of one hundred metres in all directions shall be the prohibited area in respect of such protected area or protected monument. 46. Not only this, by virtue of the proviso to Section 20-A(1) the Central Government has been clothed with the power to extend the prohibition beyond 100 m by issuing a notification in the Official Gazette keeping in view the classification of any protected monument or protected area, as the case may be, under Section 4-A. Of course, this power can be exercised only on the recommendations of the Authority as defined in Section 2(da) and constituted under Section 20-F. Somewhat similar provision has been made in Section 20-B for the regulated area in respect of every ancient monument and archaeological site and remains. The proviso to that section empowers the Central Government to issue notification in the Official Gazette and specify an area more than two hundred metres to be the regulated area having regard to the classification of any protected monument or protected area, as the case may be, under Section 4-A. 47. In terms of Section 20-A(2), it has been made clear that no person other than an Archaeological Officer shall carry out any construction in any prohibited area. This is subject to Section 20-C, which can be treated as an exception to Section 20-A(2). That section lays down that any person who owns any building or structure, which existed in a prohibited area before 16-6-1992 or had been subsequently constructed with the approval of the Director General may carry out any repair or renovation of such building or structure by making an application to the competent authority. The term “renovation” appearing in Section 20-C will take its colour from the word “repair” appearing in that section. This would mean that in the garb of renovation, the owner of a building cannot demolish the existing structure and raise a new one and the competent authority cannot grant permission for such reconstruction. 48. Section 20-A(3) lays down that the Central Government or the Director General can, in exceptional cases and having regard to the public interest, pass a reasoned order and permit a public work or any project essential to the public or other construction in a prohibited area provided that such construction does not have substantial adverse impact on the preservation, safety, security of, or access to the protected monuments or its immediate surrounding. The use of the expression “such other work or project” in clause (b) of Section 20-A(3), if interpreted in isolation, may give an impression that the Central Government or the Director General is empowered to allow any other work or project by any person in the prohibited area but, in our view, the said expression has to be interpreted keeping in view the mandate of Article 49 of the Constitution and the objects sought to be achieved by enacting the 1958 Act i.e. preservation of ancient and historical monuments, archaeological sites and remains of national importance. This would necessarily imply that “such other work or project” must be in the larger public interest in contrast to private interest. 49. This would necessarily imply that “such other work or project” must be in the larger public interest in contrast to private interest. 49. In other words, in exercise of power under Section 20-A(3), the Central Government or the Director General cannot pass an order by employing the stock of words and phrases used in that section and permit any construction by a private person dehors public interest. Any other interpretation of this provision would destroy the very object of the 1958 Act and the prohibition contained in the Notification dated 16-6-1992 and sub-section (1) of Section 20-A would become redundant and we do not think that this would be the correct interpretation of the amended provision. It also needs to be emphasised that public interest must be the core factor to be considered by the Central Government or the Director General before allowing any construction and in no case the construction should be allowed if the same adversely affects the ancient and historical monuments or archaeological sites. 50. We may now revert to the impugned judgment in these appeals. In our view, the Archaeological Survey of India is fully justified in making a grievance that the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in directing the Central Government to review the prohibition contained in the Notification dated 16-6-1992. The High Court’s anxiety to maintain a balance between the dire necessity of protecting historical monuments of national and international importance and development of infrastructures is understandable, but it is not possible to approve the fiat issued to the Central Government to review the prohibition contained in the Notification dated 16-6-1992. That notification was issued by the Central Government for implementing the policy enshrined in Article 49 of the Constitution and the 1958 Act i.e. to preserve and protect ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance. 51. Section 19 of the 1958 Act contains a restriction against construction of any building within the protected area or carrying out of any mining, quarrying, excavating, blasting or any other operation of similar nature in such area. Rules 31 and 32 of the Rules empower the Central Government to declare an area near or adjoining a protected monument to be a prohibited area or a regulated area for the purposes of mining operation or construction. Rules 31 and 32 of the Rules empower the Central Government to declare an area near or adjoining a protected monument to be a prohibited area or a regulated area for the purposes of mining operation or construction. The Central Government must have issued the Notification dated 16-6-1992 after consulting experts in the field and keeping in view the object of the 1958 Act. Therefore, in the name of development and accommodating the need for multi-storeyed structures, the High Court could not have issued a mandamus to the Central Government to review/reconsider the Notification dated 16-6-1992 and that too by ignoring that after Independence a large number of protected monuments have been facing the threat of extinction and if effective steps are not taken to check the same, these monuments may become part of history.” 36. From the above quoted observations of the Supreme Court, it is made clear that even the Central Government or the Director General cannot pass an order and permit any construction de hors public interest. It was observed that public interest must be the core factor to be considered by the Central Government or the Director General before allowing any construction and in no case the construction should be allowed, if the same would adversely affects the ancient and historical monuments or archaeological sites. This Court also finds it relevant to emphasize on the observations of the Supreme Court in so far as the Supreme Court observed that the term 'renovation' appearing in Section 20C will take its colour from the word 'repair' appearing in that Section. The Supreme Court observed that in the garb of renovation, the owner of the building cannot demolish the existing structure and have a new one constructed and the competent authority cannot grant permission for such reconstruction. 37. In the backdrop of the above, if this Court now takes note of the materials on record, in the case of the writ petitioners in WP(C) No.7322/2015, it is an admitted fact, as would appear from the reply to the communication dated 07.05.2008 that the construction of the first floor of the old residential building was ongoing in the year 2008. In the case of the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.7235/2015, the petitioner claims that the construction was completed. However, the petitioner is silent as to when. 38. In the case of the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.7235/2015, the petitioner claims that the construction was completed. However, the petitioner is silent as to when. 38. It is the opinion of this Court that on or after 16.06.1992, no construction can be carried out by a private person in a prohibited area. However, in the case of regulated area construction can be permitted on or after 16.06.1992 subject to license being issued by the Director General. It is also the opinion of this Court that as the Parliament, while inserting Section 20A and Section 20B of the Act of 1958 gave retrospective effect from the date of the Notification dated 16.06.1992, any construction so carried out by the petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest on or after 16.06.1992 would be in the teeth of Section 20A as well as Section 20B of the Act of 1958. In addition to said, it would also be contrary to Rule 33 of the Rules of 1959 read with the Notification dated 16.06.1992. It may not be out of place to mention that the petitioners in both the writ petitions did not take any permissions to construct from the Director General, and as such, even assuming arguendo, the buildings of the petitioners were beyond 100 meters of the protected limit as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, but then also, admittedly would fall within the regulated area, such constructions, if not done prior to 16.06.1992 would be contrary to Section 20B of the Act of 1958 as well as Rule 33 of the Rules of 1959 read with the Notification dated 16.06.1992. 39. At this stage, let this Court test the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners would face extreme hardships, if the building or portion of the building so constructed after 16.06.1992 is/are demolished. This Court finds it relevant to observe that Article 49 of the Constitution stipulates that it is the obligation of the State to protect every monument or place or object of artistic or historic interest, declared by or under law made by the Parliament to be of national importance, from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or export as the case may be. It is on the basis of the said Article 49 of the Constitution, the Act of 1958 was enacted. It is on the basis of the said Article 49 of the Constitution, the Act of 1958 was enacted. Permitting flouting of the provisions of the Act of 1958 as well as the Rules of 1959 would go against the public interest as it would be contrary to the object behind the Act of 1958. It is well settled that when a clear public interest is involved, the private interest of an individual must give way. The maxim ‘Salus Populi est Supremo Lex’ duly applies. In that view of the matter, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners of extreme hardship do not appeal to this Court. 40. Considering the above, this Court therefore disposes of both the writ petitions as herein under:- (i) This Court directs the respondent Nos.1 to 5 not to give effect to the impugned notices dated 10.11.2015 till adjudication are carried out as to whether the petitioners in both the writ petitions have raised the constructions for which the impugned Notices were issued prior to 16.06.1992 or thereafter. The burden shall be upon the petitioners to prove the fact that the constructions were carried out prior to 16.06.1992. (ii) This Court declares that if the constructions were carried out after 16.06.1992 and if no license/approval were obtained from the Director General as in the instant cases, such construction would be contrary to Sections 20A & 20B of the Act of 1958 as well as Rule 33 of the Rules of 1959 read with the Notification dated 16.06.1992. (iii) The petitioners in both the writ petitions are therefore provided an additional opportunity by granting them 20 (twenty) days time from today to submit representations along with such materials or evidence before the Respondent No.5 showing their buildings or part thereof were constructed and completed prior to 16.06.1992. (iv) The Authorized Signatory of the Archaeological Survey of India, on the basis of the materials so placed by the petitioners in both the writ petitions, shall decide as to whether the constructions so carried out or additional constructions carried out were prior to or post 16.06.1992. Depending upon such adjudication being carried out by the Authorized Signatory of the Archaeological Survey of India, the impugned notices dated 10.11.2015 would be required to be given effect to. Depending upon such adjudication being carried out by the Authorized Signatory of the Archaeological Survey of India, the impugned notices dated 10.11.2015 would be required to be given effect to. (v) This Court further observes and directs the Authorized Signatory of the Archaeological Survey of India to pass speaking orders in the cases of the petitioners in both the writ petitions by duly taking note of the observations made in the present judgment. (vi) This Court further observes and directs that pursuant to the passing of the Speaking Orders in the respective cases and in the circumstance the Speaking Orders are against the petitioners, no steps for demolition of the infringing building or portion thereof be taken for a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of intimation of the Speaking Orders to the respective petitioners, so that the petitioners can take recourse to the permissible course of redressal, if so advised. (vii) It is made clear that if within the period granted hereinabove, the petitioners fail to submit their representation(s), the Respondent Authorities shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.