Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: monuments act in Srikantadatta Narasimha Raja Wodeyar ... vs State Of Karnataka By Its Chief ... on 3 June, 2003Matching Fragments
1. The immovable property popularly known as "JANANA MANTAPA" situated in Chamarajanagar in Mysore belongs to the erstwhile royal family of Mysore Maharaja. It measures 35'x29'. The Government of Karnataka issued Notification at Annexures-E and F dated 10.8.2000 in W.P.No 34400/2001 under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act No 7 of 1962)(herein after in short called as 'Act') for declaring it as a Protected Monument. Thereafter, by notification at Annexure-G dated 11.6.2001 it was declared as such Aggrieved by the same, Sri Srikantadatta Narasirnharaja Wodeyar of the erstwhile royal family of Mysore has filed W.P. No. 34400/2001 seeking to quash the said notifications and to restrain the respondents No. 1 to 3 from dealing with the said property.
6. The issues involved in these Writ petitions depends upon the legality and validity of the notifications issued declaring Janana Mantapa as protected monument. To test the same, it is necessary to look into the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder Section 4 of the Act empowers the Government to declare ancient monuments to be protected monuments "Protected Monument" is defined under Section 2(10) of the Act to mean an ancient monument which is declared to be protected under the Act. As per Section 3 of the Act, all ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains which have been declared by the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 (Central Act VII of 1904) or the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act. 1925 (Karnataka Act IX of 1925). to be protected monuments but which have not been declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance, shall be deemed to be ancient and historical monuments of archaeological sites and remains declared to be protected monuments or protected area, as the case may be, under this Act.
(i) such portion of land adjoining the area as may be required for fencing or covering in or otherwise preserving it; and
(ii) the means of access to, and convenient inspection of, the area
7. From a reading of the above provisions of the Act it is clear that in order to declare a monument as "protected monument" in the first place it shall have to be of National importance as mentioned Under Section 3 of the Act. Secondly, it shall be an archaeological site and remains containing the ruins or relics of historical or archaeological importance which have been in existence for not less than one hundred years as mentioned in sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 2 of the Act. But, there is nothing on record which satisfies these requirements. Even the notifications issued for declaring Janana Mantapa as Protected monument do not state anything about these aspects. No reasons are assigned for declaring so. Why the Government decided to declare it as a protected monument is not forthcoming. Since the monument in question does not fulfil the aforesaid requirements, the impugned notifications declaring the Janana Mantapa as protected monument are without any basis. On this ground alone the notifications are liable to be quashed.
A reading of the above two descriptions regarding Janana Mantapa do not satisfy the prescriptions made in Sections 2(1) or 2{3) of the Act It follows that the notifications issued declaring Janana Mantapa as protected monument are bad in law and liable to be quashed.
9. In the statement of objections it is, stated that the Government declared Janana Mantapa as protected monument because it is the birth place of Chamaraja Wodeyar IX. The Act does not provide for declaring any birth place as protected monument. That apart, there is no proof that Chamaraja Wodeyar IX born in that place. In any event, the birth place of a person cannot be given such National importance. Such being the position Mr. S.P. Shankar learned counsel for the petitioners was right in contending that declaring the structure built in his alleged birth place as protected monument was not warranted.