Karnataka High Court Upholds 100-Metre Construction Ban Around Protected Monuments

The High Court of Karnataka has upheld the constitutional validity of provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, as amended in 2010, which restrict new construction within a 100-metre "prohibited area" around protected monuments. The court held that the restrictions are constitutionally sound and do not infringe upon citizens' fundamental rights.

The 2010 amendment introduced Sections 20A, 20B and 20C, which create two zones around monuments of national importance: a "prohibited area" extending 100 metres from the monument, where new construction is barred, and a "regulated area" stretching a further 100 metres, up to a 200-metre radius, where construction requires prior permission. These provisions are administered with reference to monuments protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

Justice M.G.S. Kamal passed the order while partly allowing a petition filed by B.R. Ramakrishna, a resident of Madhugiri town in Tumakuru district. The petitioner owns a site near the Madhugiri Fort, a monument protected by the ASI. In 2014, he sought permission to construct a residential building on the vacant portion of his land. The ASI rejected the application in 2016, citing the prohibition on new construction within 100 metres of the fort, and stated that his site lies 59 metres from the outermost wall of the fort.

Challenging the rejection, the petitioner argued that the 100-metre and 200-metre classifications lacked a scientific basis and were vague, as they did not specify the point from which the radius should be measured. He contended that the restrictions violated Articles 14 (equality before law), 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) and 300A (right to property) of the Constitution. He further submitted that the prohibition rendered his vacant land unusable without providing for compensation, which he described as 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, an obligation set out in Article 49 of the Constitution. That Article directs the State to protect every monument or place or object of artistic or historic interest declared by Parliament to be of national importance from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal or disposal.

"The personal inconvenience of the petitioner cannot be termed a constitutional infirmity of a statute," the court observed. It added that the Act is regulatory in nature and does not deprive the petitioner of title to his land.

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

However, the court directed the authorities to conduct a fresh survey to determine whether the petitioner's property falls within the prohibited or regulated area around the Madhugiri Fort. The ASI had not explained the basis for its 59-metre measurement, against the petitioner's claim that the distance is 200 metres. The fresh survey is intended to settle this disputed question of fact.

The ruling affirms the legal framework that governs construction near protected monuments while leaving the petitioner's specific grievance to be resolved through a fresh measurement of distance. The court's decision does not alter the wider protection regime under the 1958 Act; it confirms its validity and confines the relief to a factual re-examination in this case.