Sri Denis Crasta Vs the Union of India — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri Denis Crasta Vs the Union of India — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant's construction site falls within the prohibited area (within the 100-metre radius of the boundary of the centrally protected monument, Mangaladevi Temple) or within the regulated area.

Court's answer

After comparison of the Google images and upon review, the appellant accepted that the construction site is located within 100 meters of the boundary of the centrally protected monument, at a distance of 68 meters.

Ratio / Principle

Since the site admittedly lies within 100 meters of the monument boundary, this Court held it was unable to fault the order dated 28.01.2025 rejecting the request for undertaking new construction.

Key takeaways

The Division Bench left undisturbed the learned Single Judge's conclusion, drawn from Archaeological Survey of India v. Narender Anand (2012) 2 SCC 562, that the appellant is not permitted to raise construction within the prohibited area, i.e., within the radius of 100 meters of the centrally protected area.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (GM-RES), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Division Bench: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha; oral judgment per the Chief Justice), decided 05.11.2025. The appellant appealed under S. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against (i) the Single Judge's order dated 02.06.2025 in W.P. No. 9010/2025 dismissing his writ petition and (ii) consequentially Order No. 4007/CA/KAR/BC-2024-1042 dated 28.01.2025 of the Competent Authority and Regional Director (Karnataka), National Monuments Authority, refusing NOC for construction of a residential building claimed to be near the centrally protected Mangaladevi Temple, Mangaluru. The appellant argued the site lay in the regulated area, 151 meters from the monument; the respondents' Google image showed 64 meters. By interim order dated 03.11.2025, after comparing the parties' Google images, the Court recorded a prima facie view that construction was being raised at the site indicated by the respondents. Thereupon the appellant conceded that the site lies 68 meters from the monument boundary, i.e., within the 100-meter prohibited radius. Holding that it was unable to fault the order dated 28.01.2025 (the learned Single Judge having referred to Archaeological Survey of India v. Narender Anand: (2012) 2 SCC 562 in concluding that construction within the prohibited area is impermissible), the Court dismissed the appeal.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44568-DB WA No. 1083 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1083 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI DENIS CRASTA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE ELIAS CRASTA, R/ AT JEPPINAMOGERU ROAD, THANDOLIGE, PADIL, MANGALURU 575 007 (BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

…APPELLANT

AND:

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF CULTURE 24, TILAK MARG, BHAGWAN DAS LANE MANDI HOUSE, NEW DELHI, DELHI 110 001 REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDENT ARCHEOLOGIST

THE SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, 5TH FLOOR, 'F' WING, KENDRIYA SADANA, KORAMNGALA, BENGALURU 560 034

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44568-DB WA No. 1083 of 2025

HC-KAR

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR (KARNATAKA), GOVT. OF INDIA'S NATIONAL MONUMENTS AUTHORITY, KSIMC BUILDING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU -560 010

THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CITY MANGALORE, LALBAGH, MANGALORE - 575 003.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. AJAY PRABHU M, CGC FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2025 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No. 9010/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER No. 4007/CA/KAR/BC-2024-1042 DATED 28.01.2025 PASSED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR (KARNATAKA)/ 3RD RESPONDENT, WHEREBY THE RESPONDENT No.3 REFUSED TO GRANT NOC FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IN THE PROPERTY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an

order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 9010/2025, whereby the said petition was dismissed. The

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44568-DB WA No. 1083 of 2025

HC-KAR

appellant had filed the said writ petition impugning an order dated 28.01.2025, rejecting the appellant's request for permission to undertake construction within the prohibited area of a centrally protected monument [Mangaladevi Temple, Mangaluru-Dakshina Kannada District]. The concerned authority had rejected the request solely on the ground that new construction fell within the prohibited area.

It is the appellant's case that the construction site is not within the prohibited area but within the regulated area. The said contention is premised on the assumption that the site is located at a distance of 151 meters from the boundary of the centrally protected monument.

The respondents strongly contested the same.

In view of the above, both the parties produced Google Images reflecting the centrally protected monument as well as the site. In the aforesaid view, this Court had passed the following order on 03.11.2025:

According to the appellant, the site where construction is being raised is 151 metres from the centrally protected monument. The appellant relies

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44568-DB WA No. 1083 of 2025

HC-KAR

on a Google Map which is placed at page 174 of the Memorandum of Appeal. The respondents have handed over a memo enclosing therewith a Google image, which was also submitted by them before the learned Single Judge. The same indicates that construction is being raised at a spot which is at a distance of 64 metres from the centrally protected monument.

If we closely examine the two Google images, it is clear that the images are of the same area. However, the appellant is measuring the distance from site 'A' and the respondent has measured the distance from site 'B'. Thus, the first question that arises is, whether the construction is being raised at site 'A' or site 'B'.

On a prima facie view, it appears that the construction is being raised at the site as indicated by the respondents as the image itself so indicates. The site from where the distance is measured by the appellant appears to be a fully constructed site and not a vacant plot where construction is being raised.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks time to take instructions in this regard.

List on 5.11.2025.

Learned counsel for the appellant now fairly states that the appellant has since reviewed the position and accepts that the site

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44568-DB WA No. 1083 of 2025

HC-KAR

is located within 100 meters of the boundary of the centrally protected monument. According to the appellant, the distance of the site from the monument is 68 meters.

In the aforesaid view, we are unable to fault the order dated 28.01.2025, rejecting the petitioner's request for undertaking new construction.

The learned Single Judge had referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Archaeological Survey of India v. Narender Anand: (2012) 2 SCC 562 and concluded that the appellant is not be permitted to raise construction within the prohibited area [that is within the radius of 100 meters of centrally protected area].

In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

BS- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22