Karnataka HC upholds constitutionality of law on ‘prohibited’ and ‘regulated’ areas around ancient monuments

High Court of Karnataka. | Photo credit: File photo

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, as amended in 2010, which impose restrictions on new construction in the “prohibited” area – a 100-metre radius of the monument – retroactively.

The court held that the restrictions imposed through Sections 20A, 20B and 20C in “restricted” and “regulated” areas extending within 200 meters of protected monuments are constitutionally valid and do not interfere with the fundamental rights of citizens.

Fresh survey

Justice MGS Kamal passed the order and partially allowed the petition filed by BR Ramakrishna, a resident of Madhugiri town in Tumakuru district. However, the court ordered the authorities to conduct a fresh survey to find out whether his property falls under the “prohibited” or “regulated” area around Madhugiri Fort.

The petitioner, who owns land near Madhugiri Fort, a monument protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), had sought permission in 2014 to construct a residential building on a vacant portion of his land. The ASI rejected his application in 2016, citing a ban on new construction within 100 meters of the fort, claiming that his land was 59 meters from the outer wall of the fort.

No scientific data

The petitioner challenged the rejection, arguing that the classifications of 100 and 200 meters lacked scientific basis, were vague because they did not specify the point from which the radius should be measured, and violated Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution. He argued that the ban rendered his vacant land unusable without providing compensation, which amounted to expropriation without acquisition.

The court rejected the constitutional challenge and decided that the classification of prohibited and regulated areas meets the test of intelligible differentiation and has a rational relationship to the object of protection of ancient monuments, as mandated by Article 49 of the Constitution.

“The petitioner’s personal discomfort cannot be described as a constitutional statutory defect,” the court said, noting that the law is regulatory in nature and does not deprive the petitioner of his property rights.

The court also rejected the argument that the absence of compensation violates constitutional rights, with the petitioner himself admitting that the Land Acquisition Act does not count. The court did not find a retroactive enforcement error.

However, the court ordered a resurvey of the distance to the petitioner’s plot from the outer wall of the fort as the ASI had not explained the basis for measuring 59 meters against the petitioner’s claim that the distance was 200 meters.

Published – 16 Oct 2026 19:21 IST