Karnataka HC upholds constitutional validity of law on ‘prohibited’ and ‘regulated’ areas around ancient monuments

The High Court of Karnataka has upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, as amended in 2010, imposing restrictions on new constructions within the “prohibited” area — 100-metre radius of the monument — with retrospective effect.

The court ruled that the restrictions imposed through Sections 20A, 20B, and 20C in “prohibited” and “regulated” areas, which extend up to a 200-metre radius from the protected monuments, are constitutionally valid and do not infringe upon citizens’ fundamental rights.

Fresh survey

Justice M.G.S. Kamal passed the order while partly allowing the petition filed by B.R. Ramakrishna, a resident of Madhugiri town in Tumakuru district. However, the court directed the authorities to conduct a fresh survey to determine whether his property falls within the “prohibited” or “regulated” area around the Madhugiri Fort.

The petitioner, who owns a site near Madhugiri Fort, a monument protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), had sought permission in 2014 to construct a residential building on the vacant portion of his land. The ASI rejected his application in 2016, citing the prohibition on new construction within 100 metres of the fort, claiming that his site is situated at a distance of 59 metres from the outermost wall of the fort.

No scientific data

Challenging the rejection, the petitioner argued that the 100-metre and 200-metre classifications lacked scientific basis, were vague as they did not specify the point from which the radius should be measured, and violated Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution. He contended that the prohibition rendered his vacant land useless without providing for compensation, amounting to expropriation without acquisition.

Rejecting the constitutional challenge, the court held that the classification of prohibited and regulated areas satisfies the test of intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus to the object of preserving ancient monuments, as mandated by Article 49 of the Constitution.

“The personal inconvenience of the petitioner cannot be termed a constitutional infirmity of a statute,” the court observed, adding that the Act is regulatory in nature and does not deprive the petitioner of title.

The court also rejected the argument that the absence of compensation violates constitutional rights, noting that the petitioner himself admitted there is no provision for acquisition of land under the Act. The court did not find fault in enforcement of the law with retrospective effect.

However, the court ordered a fresh survey of distance to the petitioner’s land from the outermost wall of the fort as the ASI had not explained the basis for the 59-metre measurement against the petitioner’s claim that the distance is 200 metres.