Karnataka High Court Upholds No-Construction Zones Around Protected Monuments: AMASR Act and the Right to Property
The High Court of Karnataka upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 20A, 20B and 20C of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act, 1958, as amended in 2010. These sections create a "prohibited area" (100 metres around a protected monument, where new construction is banned) and a "regulated area" (a further belt beyond it, where building needs permission).
The case was filed by a resident of Madhugiri town (Tumakuru district), who owns a plot near Madhugiri Fort, a monument protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). He applied in 2014 to build a house. The ASI rejected it in 2016, saying his plot was 59 metres from the fort's outermost wall, inside the prohibited area.
He argued that the 100-metre and 200-metre limits had no scientific basis, did not say from which point the distance is measured, and violated Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution. He said the ban made his land useless without compensation, which amounted to taking it without acquiring it.
The court held that the classification passes the test of reasonable classification under Article 14: it has an intelligible basis and a rational link with the goal of protecting monuments, which is a duty of the State under Article 49. It said the Act only regulates use and does not take away the owner's title (legal ownership), and that personal inconvenience is not a constitutional defect. It also upheld the law's retrospective operation.
The petition was partly allowed: since the ASI had not explained how it measured 59 metres (the owner claimed 200 metres), the court ordered a fresh survey to decide whether the plot falls in the prohibited or regulated area.
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act)
The AMASR Act, 1958 is the main central law that protects India's ancient monuments and archaeological sites that are of national importance. It allows the central government to declare a monument "protected", to look after it, to control digging (excavation) around it, and to stop harmful construction near it. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), under the Ministry of Culture, carries out most of this work. Since 2010, the law also creates two safety belts around every protected monument, where building is banned or controlled.
The Karnataka High Court has confirmed that the 100-metre prohibited area and the regulated area created by Sections 20A to 20C are valid, even when they stop an owner from building on his own land. At the same time, its order for a fresh survey shows that the law's protection depends on accurate measurement from the monument's outermost wall.
Article 300A and the Right to Property
Article 300A of the Constitution says: "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." In simple words, the government cannot take away anyone's property unless a valid law allows it. The right to property was once a Fundamental Right. Since 1978, it is a constitutional right (also called a legal right), placed outside Part III of the Constitution. It is still protected, but in a weaker way than Fundamental Rights.
The petitioner argued that the ban on building near Madhugiri Fort took away the use of his land without compensation, violating Article 300A. The High Court rejected this because the AMASR Act is a valid law that only regulates use; the owner keeps his title, so there is no deprivation of property in the legal sense.
Article 14: Right to Equality and the Doctrine of Arbitrariness
Article 14 says the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within India. Equal treatment does not mean identical treatment for everyone: the State may make different rules for different groups, if the grouping is fair. Courts check this with the reasonable classification test, and also strike down State action that is arbitrary, meaning without reason or principle.
The High Court held that treating land within 100 metres and 200 metres of a protected monument differently from other land is a valid classification. Nearness to a monument is a clear difference (intelligible differentia), and stricter limits close to the monument have a logical link with protecting it, which is the State's duty under Article 49.
- Court: High Court of Karnataka (single judge); petition partly allowed, fresh survey ordered
- Monument: Madhugiri Fort, Madhugiri town, Tumakuru district, Karnataka (protected by the ASI)
- Permission sought: 2014; rejected by ASI: 2016; ASI's measured distance: 59 m (owner claimed 200 m)
- Provisions upheld: Sections 20A, 20B, 20C of the AMASR Act, 1958 (as amended in 2010), including retrospective operation
- Prohibited area: 100 m from the monument; regulated area: 200 m beyond the prohibited area
- Articles argued: 14, 21, 300A; State's duty relied on: Article 49
- Court's reasoning: classification has intelligible differentia and rational nexus; Act is regulatory and does not take away title; no acquisition provision in the Act
- Centrally protected monuments: 3,685 (August 2025)