LAWS(KAR)-2014-9-157

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. T. JAYAMMA

Decided On September 10, 2014
STATE OF KARNATAKA Appellant
V/S
T. Jayamma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Government and its authorities are in appeal to challenge order dated 26.09.2013 of learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.22961/2011, whereby a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the appellants herein to initiate acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and settle the compensation in accordance with law for the benefit of respondent No.1 herein.

(2.) There is no dispute about the facts that the land belonging to respondent No.1 is situated within an area of 10 to 20 meters adjoining the fort of Srirangapatna, which is a protected monument as per the notification issued by the State Government, under the provisions of the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). By notification dated 10.03.1998, bearing No. SKE 21 KMU 95, published in the Special Issue Part-V, Section 2C(ii) of the Karnataka State Gazette (Annexure R herein), issued under section 4 of the Act, in exercise of the powers vested under Rule 12 of the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1966 (for short 'Rules'), an extent of 100 meters adjacent to those monuments declared or deemed to have been declared as state protected monument and 200 meters beyond that area, was declared by the Government to be 'prohibited and protected areas' for the purposes of mining, quarrying and construction.

(3.) When respondent No.1 proposed to develop the land by making a layout in Survey No.103, the licence was denied by the Town Municipality of Srirangapatna and thus respondent No.1 was prevented from constructing any building in view of the fact that under the Act, the Government was within its power to declare the ancient monuments to be protected monuments and adjoining areas thereto, to an extent of 100 meters and 200 meters beyond that, as prohibited and protected area. It was under such circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the reliefs as under:-