Court affirms 100-metre prohibited zone and 200-metre regulated zone around Madhugiri Fort as reasonable classification, directs fresh inspection on disputed construction site
In a significant judgment delivered on October 9, 2026, the Karnataka High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 20A, 20B, and 20C of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act), as amended by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Validation and Amendment) Act, 2010. The petitioner, B.R. Ramakrishna, had challenged these provisions claiming they were arbitrary, vague, and violative of his constitutional rights, particularly under Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India, by prohibiting construction on his vacant land located near Madhugiri Fort in Tumkur District, Karnataka.
The petitioner owns a site approximately 80 metres from the outermost wall of Madhugiri Fort, a centrally protected monument under the AMASR Act. While he had already constructed a house on part of the site, he sought permission to build on the remaining vacant portion. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) denied permission on grounds that the site fell within the 100-metre prohibited area where new construction is barred under the Act. The petitioner contended the classification of prohibited and regulated zones was without scientific basis and infringed on his property rights without compensation.
The Court thoroughly examined the legislative intent behind the amendment and the constitutional mandates, especially Article 49, which directs the State to protect monuments of national importance. Citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Archaeological Survey of India v. Narender Anand and other landmark decisions, the Court held that the classification of a 100-metre prohibited area and 200-metre regulated area around protected monuments is a reasonable classification with an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to the object of monument preservation. It emphasized that the Act regulates land use but does not acquire or expropriate property, and mere regulatory restrictions do not amount to deprivation requiring compensation.
The Court also addressed the petitioner's challenge regarding the retrospective effect of the Amendment Act from 1992 and the lack of clarity on the point from which the 100-metre radius begins. It held that the 1992 notification declaring the prohibited and regulated areas had expert backing and that the Amendment Act merely validated this regime. The authority's determination that the petitioner's property lay 59 metres from the monument fell within the prohibited area. However, since the petitioner disputed this distance claiming it was about 200 metres, separated by a government school and a municipal road, the Court found a factual controversy requiring resolution.
In light of this, the Karnataka High Court directed the authorities to conduct a fresh inspection and survey to accurately determine the distance of the proposed construction from the monument and reconsider the petitioner's request for permission accordingly within three months. This ensures due process and fact-based decision-making without undermining the protective regulatory framework.
The Court declined the petitioner's plea to mandate framing of heritage bye-laws and site plans under the 2011 Rules, holding that such administrative and legislative functions are beyond the Court's mandate to enforce.
This judgment reiterates the constitutional balance between individual property rights and the State's duty to preserve heritage monuments. It underscores that protective regulations, even if restrictive, are permissible so long as they are reasonable, non-arbitrary, and serve a legitimate public purpose.
Bottom Line:
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 - Constitutional validity of Sections 20A, 20B and 20C upheld - Classification of 100 metres as prohibited area and 200 metres as regulated area around protected monuments held neither arbitrary nor violative of Articles 14 and 300A - Restriction on fresh construction in prohibited area is regulatory and not expropriatory - However, where factual dispute exists regarding actual distance of property from monument, authority directed to conduct fresh inspection/survey and reconsider request for construction permission.
Statutory provision(s):
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 Sections 20A, 20B, 20C, 27; Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Validation and Amendment) Act, 2010; Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Framing of Heritage Bye-Laws and other Functions of the Competent Authority) Rules, 2011; Constitution of India Articles 14, 21, 49, 51A(f), 300A
B.R. Ramakrishna v. Union of India, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2999822
