The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of legal provisions restricting construction around centrally protected monuments, ruling that safeguarding the country’s historical heritage can justify limits on how private land is used.
At the same time, the Court has directed authorities to re-examine the exact distance between a property near Madhugiri Fort and the protected monument before deciding whether construction can be permitted.
In its October 9 judgment in BR Ramakrishna v. Union of India & Others, Justice MGS Kamal rejected a challenge to Sections 20A, 20B and 20C of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The provisions were introduced through amendments in 2010 to regulate activities around protected monuments.
Court Finds No Constitutional Flaw in Monument Protection Rules
The case arose after BR Ramakrishna, a resident of Tumkur, was denied permission to construct a residential building on his plot near Madhugiri Fort.
In 2016, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) refused permission, stating that the proposed construction site was only 59 metres from the fort. The land therefore fell within the prohibited zone extending 100 metres from the protected monument, where construction is barred.
Ramakrishna challenged the restrictions, arguing that they were arbitrary, lacked a scientific basis and infringed his constitutional rights. He maintained that the classification of land into restricted zones was unreasonable and imposed excessive limitations on property owners.
The Court was not persuaded by his challenge.
Emphasising the purpose of the legislation and the constitutional obligation to protect monuments, the Court held that the restrictions could not be considered unreasonable or disconnected from their intended objective.
It also observed that decisions concerning the rationale behind such classifications fell within the domain of the competent expert authorities under the law.
The Court concluded that Ramakrishna had failed to establish that the challenged provisions were unconstitutional.
“Rejection of permission to put up construction in furtherance of a statute, which is regulatory in nature, cannot be the ground to quash, set aside, and declare the statute unconstitutional,” the Court held, noting that the petitioner had not discharged the burden required to invalidate the law.
Property Rights Do Not Override Heritage Protection
The ASI had opposed the proposed construction, warning that it could affect the fort’s visual appeal and surrounding cultural landscape. It also cautioned that approving the project could encourage similar demands from other landowners in the vicinity.
The Court referred to Article 49 of the Constitution, which directs the State to protect monuments and places of national importance. It also invoked Article 51A(f), which places a fundamental duty on citizens to value and preserve India’s rich cultural heritage.
Ramakrishna had further argued that the restrictions effectively deprived him of the use of his property without compensation. According to him, the vacant plot had become virtually unusable, while the compensation provision under Section 27 did not adequately address the situation.
The Court rejected this argument as well.
It clarified that the legislation did not transfer ownership of the property to the government or extinguish the owner’s title. Instead, it regulated how the land could be used.
Restrictions that reduce the utility of a property, the Court held, cannot automatically be treated as compulsory acquisition or expropriation.
The Court also declined to direct the authorities to prepare site plans and heritage bye-laws under the relevant 2011 Rules. It observed that such matters concerned administrative implementation and legislative prerogative and did not provide grounds to invalidate the substantive provisions of the Act.
Fresh Measurement Ordered for Madhugiri Fort Property
Although the Court upheld the law, it identified a separate issue concerning the measurement used to reject Ramakrishna’s construction proposal.
The petitioner disputed the authorities’ assertion that his land was 59 metres from the fort. He maintained that the property was approximately 200 metres from the southern wall of Madhugiri Fort and, therefore, might not fall within the prohibited zone.
The Court found that the survey report submitted by the authorities did not adequately explain how the 59-metre measurement had been calculated.
It consequently directed the authorities to conduct a fresh survey to establish the precise distance between the property and the protected monument. Following the survey, they must reconsider Ramakrishna’s request for construction permission.
The exercise must be completed within three months of the authorities receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The petitioner must also be informed of the decision in writing.
The ruling thus preserves the statutory restrictions designed to protect ancient monuments while requiring the authorities to verify the facts before applying those restrictions to an individual property.