The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 20A, 20B and 20C of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, which impose restrictions on construction within prohibited and regulated areas surrounding centrally protected monuments.

The Court said that the provisions classifying regulated and prohibited areas from the boundary of protected monuments under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act) are not unreasonable and ambiguous, as they further the constitutional mandate of Article 49 (state directive to protect monuments). The Court also ruled that regulation of land utilisation under the Act does not amount to expropriation, and thus compensation cannot be claimed.

Accordingly, Justice M.G.S. Kamal upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 20A, 20B and 20C of the Act.

“The provisions of Section 20A, 20B and 20C of the Act, 1958 which were inserted by Amendment Act, 2010 have clearly demarcated and classified the area of 100-metres from the protected monuments to be prohibited area and 200-metres from the protected monument to be regulated area. The provisions have thus been made specifically applicable with respect to the persons/people residing or the properties falling within the defined 'prohibited' and 'regulated' areas which is very much discernible and distinguishable,” the Court said.

It added, “Considering the object and purport of the Act and the constitutional mandate of Article 49 of the Constitution of India said classification cannot be found to be unreasonable, ambiguous or vague and unconnected as sought to be contended by the counsel for the petitioner. In any event, the reason and logic behind such classification falls within the expert domain of concerned competent authority under the Act, 1958.”

Expounding on the constitutional mandate backing the provisions, the Court also took note of Article 51A(f) which casts a duty on every citizen of India to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture.

Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in ASI vs. Narendra Anand, the Court said, “the Apex Court has read and interpreted the essentiality and imperativeness of the aforesaid provisions in the light of the mandate of the Article 49 of the Constitution of India and the object sought to be achieved through enacting Act, 1958 namely, preservation of Ancient and historical monuments, archeological sites and remains of national importance”

The Court held that the rejection of permission to put up a construction under the 1958 Act cannot be a ground to quash, set aside, and declare the statute unconstitutional, particularly when the party seeking such annulment fails to discharge the burden of proving the provision's manifest arbitrariness, violation of fundamental rights or legislative incompetence.

Reduced land utilisation under the Act cannot be equated with expropriation

The case arose when the application of the petitioner, B.R. Ramakrishna, to build a structure on a vacant portion of his property was rejected by the ASI on the ground that the land fell roughly 59 metres away from the outer perimeter wall of the Madhugiri Fort—a centrally protected monument built during the Vijayanagara and Nayak eras.

Under the Act, an area of 100 metres in all directions from a centrally protected monument has been declared a 'prohibited area'. A further area of 200 metres beginning at the limit of the prohibited area has been declared a 'regulated area' with specific regulations on any construction, renovation, repair or reconstruction work to be undertaken within the 'prohibited' and 'regulated' areas.

Ramakrishna contended that as the legislation does not provide for payment of compensation, it violates Article 31A— which mandates State to provide compensation whenever it acquires or expropriates the property of a person— as well as Article 300A.

The High Court noted that the Act intends to prohibit or regulate the properties falling within these demarcated areas, snot acquire or expropriate them.

Rejecting the petitioner's contention, the Court observed, “As rightly pointed out by the learned ASGI, what the impugned legislation intends to achieve is only the purpose of regulating the area falling within the 'prohibited zone' and the 'regulated zone'. The petitioner, not being able to put up a construction on the vacant portion of the subject site, cannot, therefore be equated to expropriation of the land.”

It stated, “Reduction in the utilization of the land also cannot be equated with expropriation of the land.”

Finding no constitutional infirmity with the legislation, the Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 20A, 20B and 20C of the Act.

However, noting that the ASI reports and documents fail to show the basis on which the distance of 59 meters between the petitioner's property and the monument boundary has been established, the Court partly allowed the petition. It directed the authorities to reconsider the representation of the petitioner after conducting a fresh survey of the area within three months.