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 x 29. The Government of Karnataka issued Notification at Annexures-E & F dated 10-8-2000 in W P No. 34400/2001 under Section 4 (1) of the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaleogical 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 Narasimharaja 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.

2. In W P Nos 25928-30/2001 the petitioners are the owners of godowns adjoining Janana Mantapa. They have filed these writ petitions seeking the same reliefs as in W P No 34400/2001

3. The petitioners in W P Nos 27038-47/2002 are also the owners of adjoining properties of Janana Mantapa. They have filed these writ petitions seeking to quash the order at Annexure-A dated 19-4-2002 passed by the Lokayukta directing the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, not to allow any constructions in the place until the matter is decided by this Court They have also sought for quashing the consequential Endorsement at Annexure-B dated 18-5-2002 issued by the Commissioner, Development Authority, Chamarajanagar on the basis of the order at Annexure-A informing one of the petitioners that the request for grant of Commencement Certificate for construction of the buildings upon their property cannot be granted until the matter is decided by this Court Subsequently, the petitioners have filed applications for amendment of the Writ Petitions seeking additional prayer to strike down Act No 7/1962 as being void and unconstitutional, to quash Rule 11 of the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites Remains Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and the Notification at Annexures-V & W dated 18-6-2001 by which 100 + 200 = 300 meters adjoining area of Janana Mantapa as Prohibited and Protected area to the Janana Mantapa which is declared as protected monument thereby prohibiting mining or construction activities within that area. On account of this, there cannot be any constructional operations within the prohibited area by the petitioners. That is why the petitioners are affected and they have filed the above said petitions seeking reliefs.

4. Since the subject matter of all these writ petitions is the same, they were heard together at the instance of the learned counsel for the parties and disposed of by this common order.

5. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of the Director of Archaeology Department it is stated that by Notification dated 11-6-2001 (Annexure-G) Janana Mantapa, the birth place of Khasa Chamaraja Wodeyar IX has been declared as State Protected Monument under Section 4(3) of theIt is also stated that the Department has not acquired or taken possession of Janana Mantapa After traversing the various factors, dismissal of the writ petitions is prayed for Along with a memo, the learned Government Pleader has produced copy of Annual Report of the Department for the year 1937 which contains reference to Janana Mantapa.

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 and the Rules framed thereunder Section 4 of theempowers the Government to declare ancient monuments to be protected monuments Protected Monument" is defined under Section 2(10) of theto mean an ancient monument which is declared to be protected under the 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.

"Ancient monument" is defined under Section 2(1) as under: -

"ANCIENT MONUMENT" means any structure, erection or monument, or any tumulus or place of interment, or any cave, rock-sculpture, inscription or monolith, which is of historical, archaeological or artistic interest and which has been in existence for not less than one hundred years, and includes: -

(i) the remains of an ancient monument;

(ii) the site of an ancient monument;

(iii) such portion of land adjoining the site of an ancient monument as may be required for fencing or covering in or otherwise preserving such rnonument; and

(iv) the means of access to, and convenient inspection of, an ancient monument;

but shall not include ancient and historical monuments declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance

"Archaeological Site and Remains" is defined under Section 2(3) as under: -

"ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE AND REMAINS" means any area which contains or is reasonably believed to contain ruins or relics of historical or archaeological importance which have been in existence for not less than one hundred years, and includes: -

(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 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 theSecondly, 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 theBut, 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 ate without any basis. On this ground alone the notifications are liable to be quashed.

8. In the Annual Report of Archaeological Survey of Mysore published in 1912, copy of which is produced by the Govt Pleader along with memo dated 17-12-2002. Janana Mantapa is mentioned as under: -

"The structure known as Janana Mantapa, built to commemorate the birth in A D 1774 of Chama Raja Odeyar, father of Krishna Raja Odeyar III, at Arikotara, the former name of Chamarajanagar, has a pretty appearance with paintings on the walls and a flower garden in front The pond known as Dodde Arasinakola, which supplies drinking water to the town, was built by Kanthitava Narasa Raja Odeyar (1638-1659) and named after his father-in-law Dodde Urs of Arikotara".

Again, in the Annual Report of the Department for the year 1937 Janana Mantapa in Chamarajanagar is mentioned as under: -

JANANA MANTAPA

The Chamarajesvara Temple and Janana Mantapa were inspected The latter seems to have been constructed out of the materials brought from the temples in the neighbourhood, eg , Terakanambi. Haralakote, Haradanahalli, etc. There is a stone tablet in English commemotrating the birth-place of Chamaraja Odeyar in 1774 The paintings on the wall represent to the left Rajarajeswari with cornucopia and sugarcane, and Chamundesvari to the right. The monument which was built in 1826 by Krishnaraja Odeyar III in memory of his father is a Protected one and is in a good state of preservation.

A reading of the above two descriptions regarding Janana Mantapa do not satisfy the prescriptions made in Section 2(1) or Section 2(3) of the. 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.

10. As per Annexure-A, the list of properties of Maharaja of Mysore, Item No 161 pertains to Janana Mantapa and it is a private property. The Government can make declaration in respect of a Private property as protected monument if such property satisfies the definition of protected monument. The declaration of the private property as protected monument will affect the right, title and interest of the true owner of the property. Such a power is not vested with the Government The action of the Government shall not affect the property rights of private individuals guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution In the instant case, the rights of the petitioners are affected by the impugned action of the Government Hence, the same is wholly unsustainable in law.

11. It is not in dispute that Janana Mantapa is the private property Admittedly, the same is not acquired by the Government. In paragraph 12 of the statement of objections it is stated as under: -

"12. It is further submitted that the Janana Mantapa is not a abandoned place. It requires care. If brought under State Protected Monument there will be improvement in its status quo. For this to achieve proper environment should be created"

If the above is the object and intention of the Government, it should have acquired the monument in question as provided under Section 13 of theWithout acquiring the same, the Government proceeded to meddle with the private property. The Government has no power to do so Consequently, the impugned notifications are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the.

12. For the reasons stated above, W P No 34400/2001 has to be allowed and the notifications impugned therein are liable to be quashed.

13. So far as the other two batch of writ petitions are concerned, in addition to the aforesaid notifications, the petitioners have sought to quash the Notification at Annexure-V dated 18-6-2001 declaring 100+200 meters surrounding Janana Mantapa as prohibited, protected or regulated area under Rule 12 of the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments And Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules.) In view of this notification, mining and other constructional works are prohibited within the said radius. In W P Nos 27038-47/2002 the petitioners also sought to quash the order at Annexure-A dated 19-4-2002 passed by the Lokayukta directing the Commissioner, C M C, Chamarajanagar not to allow any constructions in the area and the consequential Endorsement at Annexure-B issued accordingly by the Commissioner, Chamarajanagar, Ramasamudra Development Authority and C M C Respondents 5 and 6 in W P Nos 27038 47/2002 have filed statement of objections supporting the impugned notifications and seeking dismissal of the writ petitions. It is not necessary to advent to what has been stated therein in view of the aforesaid reasons and also for the reasons stated hereinafter.

14. The notification has been issued in view of the notifications declaring Janana Mantapa as protected monument. Since those notifications are liable to be quashed, Annexure-V also cannot be sustained. Consequently, the order at Annexure-A passed by the Lokayukta and the Endorsement at Annexure-B issued by the Commissioner, C M C, Chamarajanagar, are also liable to be quashed At the same time, it has to be observed that the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to pass the order at Annexure-A on the basis of a complaint of a third party.

15 It is also significant to note that the do not mention anything about "protected area" or "Regulated Area" defined under Rule 2(9) of the Rules. Rules being supplemental to the, what is not provided under the cannot be dealt with by the Rules In other words, protected area or regulated area mentioned in the Rules are excessive to the provisions of the and the same are beyond the competence of legislation Therefore, the notification at Annexure-V is wholly unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

16 One more reason to quash Annexure-V is, the Municipal Corporations Act, Municipalities Act and the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act regulate the constructions The notification at Annexure-V is contrary to the provisions of the said statutes. If constructions are made in accordance with the provisions of the said statutes, the same cannot be either regulated or prohibited in exercise of the powers confirmed under the Rules in question. By virtue of the impugned notification, the plans got sanctioned and licenses obtained by the petitioners and others have been made unenforceable and waste. The very object and purpose for which plans and licenses have been obtained are defeated thereby the petitioners have been denied the light of developing their properties. Such an action is impermissible in law.

17. Mr. S. P. Shankar relied upon large number of decisions in support of his arguments. All those decisions are not referred to in view of the reliefs being granted to the petitioners.

18. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned notifications, order and endorsement are quashed.

19. The constitutional validity of the provisions of Act 7/62 is not considered in these petitions. The same is kept open for being considered in appropriate case.