The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 20A, 20B and 20C of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, which prohibit construction within a 100-metre zone around centrally protected monuments. The ruling came in the matter of BR Ramakrishna v. Union of India & others, where the petitioner challenged the provisions on grounds of arbitrariness, violation of fundamental rights, and lack of scientific basis for the demarcation of prohibited zones.
Justice MGS Kamal, delivering the judgment on October 9, 2026, held that the classification embedded in the impugned provisions could not be deemed unreasonable, ambiguous, or unconnected to the object of the Act. The Court emphasized that considering the object and purport of the Ancient Monuments Act and the constitutional mandate under Article 49 to protect monuments, the restrictions fell within the legitimate scope of legislative regulation. It further observed that the reasoning behind such classification resides within the expert domain of the competent authority under the Act, and courts should not interfere unless the classification is shown to be patently arbitrary.
The petitioner, BR Ramakrishna, a resident of Tumkur, had sought to construct a residential building on a plot of land he owned near Madhugiri Fort. His application was rejected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in 2016, which stated that the site lay 59 metres from the monument, thereby falling within the prohibited 100-metre zone where no construction is permitted. Aggrieved by the refusal, Ramakrishna approached the High Court, contending that the restrictions violated his constitutional rights, particularly the right to property, and that there was no scientific basis for fixing the 100-metre limit.
The Court rejected the contention that mere refusal of permission under a regulatory statute could serve as a ground to declare the statute unconstitutional. It held that rejection of permission to construct in furtherance of a regulatory statute cannot be the basis to quash, set aside, or declare the statute unconstitutional, particularly when the party seeking such relief has not discharged the burden of proving the provisions’ unconstitutionality. The burden, the Court reiterated, lay on the petitioner to establish that the challenged provisions were arbitrary or violated constitutional guarantees.
In support of its ruling, the Court referred to Article 51A(f) of the Constitution, which imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to value and preserve the country’s rich cultural heritage. The Court noted that the impugned provisions must be read in harmony with this directive principle and fundamental duty, reinforcing the legislative intent to safeguard monuments from encroachment and visual obstruction.
Ramakrishna also argued that the restrictions amounted to deprivation of property without compensation, as his vacant land had become virtually unusable, while Section 27 of the Act provides compensation only for actual loss, damage, or diminution of profits. The Court held that the Act does not acquire land or extinguish title; it merely regulates the use of land. It emphasized that reduced utilization of land due to regulatory restrictions cannot be equated with expropriation or compulsory acquisition, and hence, no obligation to pay compensation arises under the Act in such cases.
The petitioner further prayed for directions to the authorities to prepare site plans and heritage bye-laws under the Rules of 2011. The Court declined to issue such directions, holding that the formulation of site plans and heritage bye-laws falls within the domain of administrative implementation and legislative prerogative. It observed that such matters could not be made a ground to strike down substantive provisions of the Act, which remain valid and enforceable.
Notwithstanding the dismissal of the constitutional challenge, the Court took note of the petitioner’s specific grievance regarding the distance measurement. Ramakrishna had contended that his land was actually around 200 metres from the southern wall of Madhugiri Fort, not 59 metres as stated by the ASI. The Court found that the survey report submitted by the authorities did not disclose the methodology or basis for arriving at the 59-metre figure. In the interest of fairness and administrative correctness, it directed the ASI to conduct a fresh survey of the petitioner’s property to determine its precise distance from the protected monument. The authorities have been directed to complete the exercise within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order and to communicate their decision on the construction request to the petitioner in writing.
The judgment affirms the legislative competence to regulate construction near protected monuments while ensuring that administrative actions affecting individual rights are based on verifiable and transparent data. The Court balanced the imperative of heritage protection with the need for procedural accuracy in enforcement.