Bangalore: The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act), which regulate construction near protected monuments.
The court ruled that the rules defining prohibited and regulated areas are reasonable and do not violate the Constitution. However, it directed the authorities to reconsider a property owner’s complaint about the distance between his land and a protected monument after conducting a fresh survey within three months.
Karnataka High Court’s Key Ruling on Karnataka Protected Monuments
The Karnataka High Court upheld Sections 20A, 20B and 20C of the AMASR Act. These provisions establish restrictions on construction and other activities around centrally protected monuments.
Read also: Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Enhanced SC/ST Quota, Cites 50% Reservation Limit
Justice M.G.S. Kamal delivered the ruling, explaining that the law aims to protect India’s historical monuments and archaeological sites while regulating construction in nearby areas.
The court held that the restrictions are neither unreasonable nor vague. It also rejected the argument that these rules amount to the government’s acquisition of private property.
What Are Prohibited And Regulated Areas Under The AMASR Act
The AMASR Act sets specific limits around centrally protected monuments to help preserve their historical and cultural importance. Under the law, these areas are divided into two categories:
1. Prohibited Area
A prohibited area generally covers land within 100 metres in every direction from a centrally protected monument. Construction and other activities are subject to strict restrictions in this zone.
2. Regulated Area
A regulated area generally extends another 200 metres beyond the prohibited area’s boundary. Construction, renovation, repair and reconstruction activities in this zone are subject to prescribed rules and permissions.
These restrictions aim to prevent nearby development from damaging protected monuments or affecting their historical value.
Karnataka Protected Monuments: Why Did The Property Owner Approach The Court
The case arose after the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) rejected an application filed by B.R. Ramakrishna to construct a structure on a vacant portion of his property.
The ASI reportedly rejected the application on the ground that the land was approximately 59 metres away from the outer boundary wall of Madhugiri Fort.
Madhugiri Fort is a historically significant monument associated with the Vijayanagara and Nayaka periods. Ramakrishna challenged the restrictions, arguing that the legislation unfairly affected his property rights.
Property Owner Argued That The Law Violated Constitutional Rights
Ramakrishna argued that the AMASR Act did not provide compensation for restrictions imposed on his property. He relied on Article 31A of the Constitution, which deals with certain laws relating to the acquisition of estates and property, as well as Article 300A, which protects the right to property.
His argument was that restrictions preventing construction could substantially affect the use of his land without compensation. However, the High Court rejected the argument that limiting construction near a protected monument automatically amounted to the acquisition or compulsory taking of property.
Why The Karnataka High Court Rejected The Constitutional Challenge
The court explained that the main purpose of the AMASR Act is to regulate activities around protected monuments, rather than acquire private land.
It observed that restrictions on how land can be used do not automatically amount to expropriation, which means taking property away from its owner. The court also found that the provisions clearly distinguish between prohibited and regulated areas.
According to the ruling, the law provides a reasonable classification of land based on its distance from protected monuments. The court found that this classification was connected to the objective of protecting India’s historical heritage.
Article 49 And Article 51A(f) Of The Constitution
The High Court also considered the constitutional duties related to protecting India’s cultural heritage.
Article 49: Protection Of Monuments
Article 49 directs the State to protect monuments, places and objects of national importance from destruction, damage, removal or other forms of harm. The court noted that the AMASR Act supports this constitutional responsibility by regulating activities near protected monuments.
Article 51A(f): Fundamental Duty To Preserve Heritage
Article 51A(f) places a duty on every citizen to value and preserve India’s rich cultural heritage. The court referred to this duty while explaining the importance of protecting historical monuments and archaeological sites.
It also considered the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in ASI v. Narendra Anand, which discussed the importance of preserving ancient monuments and historical sites.
Court Says Restrictions Do Not Automatically Require Compensation
The High Court rejected the claim that reduced use of land should be treated as expropriation.
It observed that the legislation aims to regulate construction and activities in designated areas rather than transfer ownership of the land to the government.
The court found no constitutional defect in Sections 20A, 20B and 20C of the AMASR Act. As a result, it upheld the validity of these provisions.
Fresh Survey Ordered In The Property Owner’s Case
Although the court upheld the constitutional validity of the law, it identified a separate issue concerning the measurement of the distance between Ramakrishna’s property and Madhugiri Fort.
The court noted that the ASI’s reports and documents did not adequately establish how the reported distance of 59 metres had been calculated.
It therefore partly allowed the petition and directed the authorities to reconsider the property owner’s representation after conducting a fresh survey of the area. The survey and reconsideration must be completed within three months.
This direction means that the constitutional challenge was unsuccessful, but the specific dispute over the property’s distance from the monument must be examined again.
Read also: Karnataka Illegal Immigration: Karnataka High Court Gives State 3 Months To Act
FAQs
A prohibited area generally extends 100 metres from a centrally protected monument. A regulated area generally covers the next 200 metres, where construction and other activities are subject to prescribed restrictions and permissions.
The Karnataka High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 20A, 20B and 20C of the AMASR Act, which regulate construction around centrally protected monuments.
The court found that the ASI’s reports and documents did not adequately establish the basis for the reported 59-metre distance between the property and Madhugiri Fort. It directed the authorities to conduct a fresh survey and reconsider the owner’s representation within three months.
