Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court has rejected the challenge to the constitutional validity of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, specifically the regulations on construction, renovation,…

Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court has rejected the challenge to the constitutional validity of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, specifically the regulations on construction, renovation, repair or reconstruction within the ‘prohibited’ and ‘regulated’ areas surrounding a centrally protected monument.“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 a 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,” Justice MGS Kamal said in his order.The petitioner B R Ramakrishna, a resident of Madhugiri in Tumakuru district, had challenged the provisions after the authorities rejected his application seeking permission to undertake construction on his property. Monumental loss: 314 heritage sites in Karnataka are not traceableThe petitioner owns a larger extent of the site, wherein he has already put up construction utilizing half of the site. It is on the remaining vacant portion that he intended to put up construction.While the petitioner claimed that the site is 200-metres from the Southern side of the fort wall, the authorities submitted that it is about 59 metres from the outermost wall of the fort, a protected monument. The petition claimed that fixation of prohibited and regulated areas at 100-metres and 200-metres, respectively, is without any scientific basis and cannot be termed as reasonable restriction. The petitioner questioned the retrospective effect of the 2010 Amendment, from June 16, 1992, as unreasonable, arbitrary and illogical.The court noted that the 2010 amendment only intended to prohibit and regulate properties falling within the areas declared and defined under Sections 20A, 20B and 20C, and does not seek to acquire and expropriate any property. “..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, particularly when the party seeking such annulment has not discharged the burden cast on him,” Justice Kamal said.While partly allowing the petition, the court has now directed the authorities to conduct a fresh inspection to find out whether the land falls within the prohibited area or the regulated area or at 200-feet from the external wall of the fort.

Source: Deccan Herald