A plot 59 metres from Madhugiri Fort goes back for a fresh survey, but the law behind the curbs stands: Karnataka High Court Upholds AMASR Act restrictions on land near protected monuments, saying that regulating land use is not expropriation.
Bengaluru: Sections 20A, 20B and 20C of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, which create a 100-metre prohibited area and a 200-metre regulated area around centrally protected monuments, are constitutionally valid, the Karnataka High Court has held. The authorities have, however, been told to survey afresh a vacant plot near the Madhugiri Fort and to reconsider its owner’s representation [B R Ramakrishna v. Union of India and Others].
The order, dated October 9, 2026, was passed by Justice M G S Kamal in Writ Petition No. 10451 of 2018, which was heard and reserved on July 17, 2026. It partly allows the petition. The challenge to the statute fails, but the survey reports on record, the Court found, did not show how the plot’s distance from the fort had been fixed.
The dispute over one plot
The petitioner, B R Ramakrishna, wanted to build on a vacant portion of his property. His application was rejected by the Archaeological Survey of India, which recorded that the land lay about 59 metres from the outer perimeter wall of the Madhugiri Fort. Sections 20A to 20C were then challenged by him on two footings: that the Act provides no compensation and so violates Articles 31A and 300A of the Constitution, and that the classification into prohibited and regulated areas is unreasonable, ambiguous and vague. Senior Counsel Dhananjay Joshi with advocate Kashyap N Naik appeared for him.
Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath argued for the Union that the law regulates how land within the zones is used and does not acquire or expropriate any property.
Why the zones were upheld
The 100-metre and 200-metre zones are clearly demarcated, Justice Kamal held, and are not unreasonable, vague or unconnected with the object of the Act. The scheme was tied by the Court to the constitutional mandate to protect monuments under Article 49 and to the citizen’s duty under Article 51A(f). It also recorded that the petitioner had not raised legislative competence and had not shown manifest arbitrariness or a violation of fundamental rights. On the choice of the zones, the Court said:
“the reason and logic behind such classification falls within the expert domain of concerned competent authority”
A statute does not fall merely because one landowner is refused permission, the Court held, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Archaeological Survey of India v. Narender Anand, which stressed that construction should not be allowed where it adversely affects ancient and historical monuments.
Regulation, not a taking
As to Articles 31A and 300A, the 1958 Act and the 2010 Amendment, the Court held, do not seek to acquire or expropriate any citizen’s property; they only prohibit and regulate land use. K T Plantation was distinguished on the ground that the Act provides neither for acquisition nor for payment for diminution of profit. The Court observed:
“Reduction in the utilization of the land also cannot be equated with expropriation of the land.”
Heritage bye-laws under Section 20E had also been sought by the petitioner. Administrative implementation and legislative domain was how the Court saw that request, and it held that it could not be a ground to strike down the substantive provisions.
Where the petition succeeded: the measurement
On facts, the petition was partly successful. An earlier order of April 10, 2023 had directed the respondents to ascertain the damage or obstruction that would be caused to the notified monument. The survey report filed in response, the Court found:
“does not give the basis on which these 59-metres have been determined.”
The reliefs challenging Sections 20A to 20C were rejected. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to reconsider the petitioner’s representation after a fresh inspection and survey of the area, and to pass fresh orders expeditiously. Whether the proposed construction falls in the prohibited or the regulated area is for the authority to find, and the exercise is to be completed within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
How the statutory scheme is built
Sections 20A to 20C came into the 1958 Act through the 2010 Amendment Act, in force from January 23, 2010, with several insertions deemed effective from June 16, 1992. The area extending 100 metres in all directions from the limit of a protected monument is a prohibited area under Section 20A, and the 200 metres beyond it a regulated area under Section 20B. Under Section 20C, owners may apply to the competent authority for repair or renovation in a prohibited area, and for construction, reconstruction, repair or renovation in a regulated area.
The Supreme Court has read this as a regulating scheme and not a ban. In Ardhendu Kumar Das v. State of Odisha (June 3, 2022), a Bench of Justices B R Gavai and Hima Kohli held that essential facilities such as toilets, water supply and drainage are permissible in a prohibited area, and that Section 20A(4) must be read together with Section 2(dc) and Sections 20C and 20D. The question before the High Court was whether the statutory zones themselves can survive a challenge based on the owner’s property rights.
What the ruling means for owners
A High Court has now endorsed the 2010 scheme against a property-rights attack. A restriction on how land near a monument may be used is regulation and not a taking, so the lack of a compensation clause does not make the zones unconstitutional. An owner refused permission will have to challenge the particular decision and not the statute.
The direction for a fresh survey points the other way: the zones bind only when the distance is properly established. A refusal that rests on a measurement the authority cannot explain remains open to correction in writ proceedings.
Case Title: B R Ramakrishna v. Union of India and Others [Writ Petition No. 10451 of 2018 (GM-RES)]
Bench: Justice M G S Kamal, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: October 9, 2026
Appearances: Senior Counsel Dhananjay Joshi with advocate Kashyap N Naik for the petitioner; Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3; Additional Government Advocate Mahantesh Shettar for Respondent No. 4
