Gauhati High Court Quashes Archaeology Department’s Move to Take Over ‘Chauldhuwa Pukhuri’

M/s Lohia Charitable Trust, a registered public trust, received by gift in 1970 a plot measuring over 17 bighas in Tinsukia, Assam. The Trust has been in peaceful possession of the land, where it constructed a temple and maintained an adjoining water tank. In May 2015, a mob trespassed onto the property and attempted to disturb possession, prompting the Trust to lodge an FIR.

Thereafter, the Director of Archaeology, Assam, issued a communication dated 15.12.2015 to the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, stating that the tank, referred to as “Chauldhuwa Pukhuri”, was historically connected to the Matak Dynasty and should be acquired under Section 12 of the Assam Ancient Monuments and Records Act, 1959. A follow-up notice dated 22.07.2016 was issued by the Circle Officer, directing the Trust to produce land documents for verification. The Trust challenged these actions, arguing that the water body formed part of its legally gifted property, that the site had never been officially declared a protected monument, and that the authorities were acting without jurisdiction and under external pressure from local groups attempting to encroach the land.

Main Issue: Whether the State authorities could initiate steps for the acquisition or takeover of the petitioner’s land, including the water tank, by treating it as a historical monument without complying with the mandatory statutory procedure under the Assam Ancient Monuments and Records Act, 1959 and the Rules of 1964.

Decision: The Gauhati High Court held that the impugned communication dated 15.12.2015 and notice dated 22.07.2016 were issued without following the mandatory procedure prescribed by law. The Court noted that Rule 3 of the Assam Ancient Monuments and Records Rules, 1964 requires a detailed enquiry, collection of evidence, and specification of the area proposed for protection before any monument can be declared protected, none of which had been done.

The Court also observed that the State failed to file the detailed affidavit previously directed by the Court, nor produced any record demonstrating that Chauldhuwa Pukhuri was a notified protected monument. Even if the tank might have historical value, the Court held that acquisition under Section 12 of the 1959 Act is permissible only when there is apprehension of destruction, injury, misuse, or decay, circumstances not shown in this case.

Applying the principle laid down in Nazir Ahmad (AIR 1936 PC 253), the Court reiterated that when law prescribes a procedure to be followed, it must be followed strictly. As the statutory procedure had not been followed, the impugned actions were set aside. However, the Court clarified that authorities remain free to undertake a fresh exercise in accordance with law, including public hearing, proper enquiry, and statutory compliance to determine whether the tank qualifies as a historical site requiring preservation.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below