HYDERABAD: Why do the residents around Golconda, Charminar or Warangal Fort return ASI notices? Is it justified to pull up people who have been residing in a place for decades and had decided to take up construction as part of maintenance?
While there may be no black and white answers to these questions, stakeholders in the issue have varying responses.
AIMIM’s MLA from Karwan Assembly constituency Kausar Mohiuddin says that residents refute ASI notices primarily because houses and other buildings in the area are old structures.
“The inhabitants of the area have been residing here for a long time. Their houses are also old. That is why they do not accept notices. They take up construction activities to maintain their houses,” he said.
While empathy is a strong emotion, it does not stand in the court of law. However, in this case, the law in itself seems to be flawed.
While speaking to Express, ASI-Hyderabad Superintendent Archaeologist M K Chauley said that the 1951 notification of the Archaeological Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, mentions ‘Golconda Fort and Tombs’ as ‘protected monument’, but does not define it further. “How is one supposed to know what entails a protected site?” he asks.
This was corrected in the 1985 notification which defined it further and included the citadel, outer fortification wall and other areas into it.
However, the problem lies in the fact that the same does not reflect in the revenue maps; there is also no mechanism to identify government land and private lands, Chauley said.
Speaking to Express recently, G Ravi, the joint collector of Hyderabad district said that the DA was jointly working towards mapping the whole of Golconda Fort in a bid to regulate construction activities and identify encroachments.
The Aga Khan Trust for Culture (AKTC) officials -- involved in the conservation of Qutub Shahi tombs -- are helping the administration in superimposing it on cadastral maps that show boundaries and ownership of land within specified areas.