The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru Bench has upheld the constitutional validity of construction restrictions around protected monuments, but ordered a fresh survey to determine whether a landowner’s proposed site actually falls within the prohibited zone. The Court held that restrictions on land use did not amount to expropriation, but directed reconsideration of the construction request because the basis for the reported 59-metre distance remained unexplained.
As the petitioner failed to establish constitutional infirmity in Sections 20A, 20B and 20C of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, the Court found the prohibited and regulated classifications discernible and connected to monument preservation under Article 49. It also referred to citizens’ duty under Article 51A(f) to preserve cultural heritage.
Since the inability to build on the vacant portion, or reduced utilisation of the property, did not amount to expropriation, the Court distinguished the regulatory restrictions from acquisition of land and rejected the compensation-based challenge in this case. Although the inspection recorded a distance of 59 metres, the survey report did not explain the basis for that measurement. The Court held that the factual issue remained undetermined. Accordingly, the Court directed the Respondents to reconsider the representation after a fresh inspection or survey and pass a fresh order.
Briefly, B.R. Ramakrishna sought permission to construct a residential building on the vacant portion of his property near Madhugiri Fort, a centrally protected monument. He had already constructed a house on another portion of the property in 1991. The authorities refused permission on the ground that the proposed construction was 59 metres from the monument and fell within its prohibited area.
He challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 20A, 20B and 20C of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, sought permission to construct, and requested directions for preparing site plans and heritage bye-laws. He argued that the restrictions were arbitrary, prevented meaningful use of his vacant land without compensation, and overlooked nearby government buildings and his claim that the proposed construction would not affect the monument.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice M.G.S. Kamal observed that the classification of prohibited and regulated areas was discernible and connected to the preservation of monuments. It relied on the State’s obligation under Article 49 and citizens’ duty under Article 51A(f) to preserve heritage, observing that refusal of construction permission under a regulatory statute did not, by itself, establish that the statute was unconstitutional.
The Court distinguished restrictions on land use from acquisition or expropriation: inability to construct on the vacant portion, or reduced utilisation of the land, did not amount to expropriation warranting compensation in this case. However, it found that the rejection and subsequent survey report had not adequately resolved the distance issue or explained the basis for the 59-metre measurement.
