The Karnataka High Court has issued a firm direction to the State Urban Development Department to ensure that no new construction is allowed near protected monuments unless a prior No Objection Certificate (NOC) is obtained from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The court emphasized that any permission granted in violation of this requirement would expose the concerned officers to departmental action.
“The circular shall also indicate that permissions if granted by officers contrary to law, they would be doing so at their peril, making themselves open for initiation of a departmental enquiry,” stated Justice M. Nagaprasanna while dismissing a writ petition filed by Denis Crasta.
Crasta had approached the High Court challenging an order dated January 28, 2025, issued by the Regional Director, National Monuments Authority, which denied him permission to construct a residential house and directed him to stop the ongoing construction. The site in question is situated within 150 meters northeast of Mangala Devi Temple in Mangalore, which is a centrally protected monument.
Case Background
The petitioner, Denis Crasta, became the absolute owner of an 8.80 cents plot through a partition decree. After securing the khata and converting the land for residential use, he obtained a building licence and plan approval from the Mangalore City Corporation in December 2023. Based on these approvals, he began constructing a new house.
However, the Archaeological Survey of India intervened by issuing a stop-work notice on May 4, 2024, citing that the construction was within the regulated area surrounding the protected monument. Crasta’s plea for an NOC was rejected on grounds that the construction was just 64 meters away from the monument—well within the 100-meter prohibited zone.
The petitioner argued that his construction site lies in the regulated zone, not in the prohibited area, and hence, could be permitted with proper regulations. He also claimed that he was merely reconstructing an old structure, which is permitted under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. He submitted a Google Earth image showing a 151.1-meter distance from the temple. However, the court found this image to be misleading and manipulated by shooting from a different angle to distort the actual proximity.
The court examined the statutory framework under the 1958 Act and its 2010 amendment. It noted that under Sections 20A and 20B, construction in the prohibited area (within 100 meters) is outright barred, and in the regulated area (between 100 to 200 meters), it is subject to strict permissions. The court found that Crasta’s construction fell squarely within the 64-meter prohibited zone.
“When Mangala Devi Temple is declared to be a protected monument, it is ununderstandable as to how the Corporation has granted permission to put up a new construction, that too without keeping Archaeological Survey of India in the loop, is deeply perturbing. Permission is granted in blithe ignorance or indifference to the statutory embargo. Public functionaries are the custodians of the law, not its adversaries,” the court remarked.
The Corporation officials have wantonly ignored the mandate of the law in permitting construction of the kind that is permitted in the case at hand, which undoubtedly undermines statutory sanctity, the judge added.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Archaeological Survey of India v. Narender Anand, the High Court reiterated the importance of protecting heritage monuments and said Article 49 of the Constitution makes it the State’s duty to preserve national heritage.
The court directed the State Urban Development Department to issue a circular warning all officers not to grant permissions for any new construction around protected monuments without ASI's prior approval.
Read Also:-Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Youth for Reselling IPL Tickets
“Action should ensue against those erring officials who have permitted such construction. A departmental enquiry shall be initiated against those erring officials and appropriate action be taken, on identification of the role of such erring officers qua the permission granted for putting up the subject construction. The departmental enquiry shall be held in strict consonance with the principles of natural justice and affording of adequate opportunity to such officials so identified,” the order stated.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Denis Crasta vs Union of India & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 9010 of 2025
Coram: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Pronounced On: June 2, 2025
