Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains act 1961 section 33 act in addition to and not in erogation of central act 24 of 1958 Page 1 of about 7 results (0.175 seconds)

The State Of Karnataka and Others Vs. T. Jayamma and Another

Court : Karnataka

..... " the karnataka ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, 1961 is stated to have been enacted along the lines of corresponding provisions of the ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, 1958 and in order to bring about uniformity in the laws relating to protection and preservation of ancient monuments falling under entry 12 in the state list, that is, ancient monuments other than, those declared by or under the law made by parliament to be of national importance. 8. ..... though the learned government advocate contended that the declaration of the protected monument and the protected area is the first step and the acquisition can always take place as contained under section 13 of the act, a perusal of section 13 would indicate that the same does not as a natural consequence provide for acquisition but all that the provision contains is that only if the government apprehends that a protected monument is in danger of being destroyed, injured, misused or allowed to fall into decay, it ..... therefore, in the name of development and accommodating the need for multi-storeyed structures, the high court could not have issued a mandamus to the central government to review/reconsider the notification dated 16-6-1992 and that too by ignoring that after independence a large number of protected monuments have been facing the threat of extinction and if effective steps are not taken to check the same, these monuments may become part of history." 6. .....

The State of Karnataka Vs. Smt T Jayamma

Court : Karnataka

..... the karnataka ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, 1961 is stated to have been enacted along the lines of corresponding provisions of the ancient monuments and archaeological 16 sites and remains act, 1958 and in order to bring about uniformity in the laws relating to protection and preservation of ancient monuments falling under entry 12 in the state list, that is, ancient monuments other than those declared by or under the law made by parliament to be of national importance.8 ..... though the learned government advocate contended that the declaration of the protected monument and the protected area is the first step and the acquisition can always take place as contained under section 13 of the act, a perusal of section 13 would indicate that the same 10 does not as a natural consequence provide for acquisition but all that the provision contains is that only if the government apprehends that a protected monument is in danger of being destroyed, injured, misused or allowed to fall into decay, it ..... therefore, in the name of development and accommodating the need for multi-storeyed structures, the high court could not have issued a mandamus to the central government to review/reconsider the notification dated 16-6-1992 and that too by ignoring that after independence a large number of protected monuments have been facing the threat of extinction and if effective steps are not taken to check the same, these monuments may become part of history. 6. .....

The State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Chief Secretary and ors. Vs. Sri Sr ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2008KAR5031; 2009(3)KarLJ674; 2009(1)KCCR153

..... the government of karnataka exercising the power under section 4 of the karnataka ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' for short) declared the said 'janana mantapa' as a protected monument initially under a notification dated 15.4.1997, which was questioned before this court in w.p. no ..... it is further stated in the said communication that chamarajanagar was not a district center earlier and since the same has been recently declared as a district center, the town has improved many folds and in that context if 300 meters radius is declared as protected area, it would prevent development in the central part of the town and also the acquisition of the area would involve huge expenditure and the same would not serve any public purpose. ..... in addition to the above, the denial of right to enjoy the property of the petitioners not only due to declaration of the 'janana mantapa' as the protected monument but also the surrounding area as protected area to a radius of 300 meters is also an issue which requires ..... is important to be noticed at this juncture itself is, though clause (iii) of sub-section (1) to section 2 would include the requisite adjoining land also as 'ancient monument', the additional extent of 100 + 200 meters is not included as such site in the instant case since the notification dated 15.6.2001 is only to the extent of 22.6 x 16.8 mtrs, which alone would be the purported 'protected monument'. .....

Joseph Pothen Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1965SC1514; 1965(0)KLT633(SC); [1965]2SCR868

..... the ancient monuments preservation act, 1904, in the year 1951 to kerala, as the said act covered the same field occupied by the state act, or at any rate the said regulation was impliedly repealed by the ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains (declaration of national importance) act, 1951 (act lxxi of 1951) and the ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, 1958 (act xxiv of 1958) ..... under section 3 thereof all ancient and historical monuments declared by central act ..... have pointed out earlier, the parliament can make a law in respect of ancient and historical monuments and records declared by or under law made by it to be of national importance, but the central act of 1904 did not embody any declaration to that effect. ..... not make any allegation in the petition filed in the high court that it was an archaeological site or remains and, therefore, the central act displaced the state act. ..... definition was wide enough to cover both-on which we do not express any opinion - that state act may be liable to attack on the ground that it, in so far as it deals with archaeological site or remains, was displaced by the central act. ..... section 4 thereof enabled the central government to issue a notice of its intention to declare any other monument to be of national importance which did not come under section 3 of the said act ..... but the central government did not give any notice of its intention to declare the monument in question as one of .....

Srikantadatta Narasimha Raja Wodeyar and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka b ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2003KAR2711; 2004(3)KarLJ136

..... 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 ..... 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 monument; 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:-'archaeologocal site and remains' means any area ..... 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 annexure-v and 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 .....

B.V. Narayana Reddy and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1985Kant99; ILR1984KAR631

..... 226 of the constitution raises an interesting question as to the scope of the karnataka ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, 1961 ('act' for short). ..... the existing building of the high court, especially considering the needs of the additional accommodation required by the high court, and the weakness of the existing structure which is over 115 years old, it would be in the fitness of things if the existing style and facade were repeated without any change whatsoever while providing for the required additional levels within the proposed additional heightof 10 feet, (underlining supplied)the note of the public works secretariat dated ..... supreme court said:' .....the parliament having left to the unfettered judgment of the central government the question as regards the time for bringing the provisions of 'the 44th - amendment into force, it is not for the court to compel the government to do that which according to the mandate of the parliament lies in its discretion to do when it considers it opportune to do it ........ ..... in the house of lords, lord chancellor (earl cairns) adverting to the words 'it shall be lawful' occurring in the third section of the church discipline act asked:'under the words 'it shall be lawful' is the bishop bound, on the application of any party, to issue a commission or has he a discretion as to whether he will issue. ..... no express answer to these questions is given in the act of 1958. .....

B. Veera Reddy Swamy Vs. Station House Officer, Kolimigundla Police St ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2001(1)ALD9; 2001(1)ALT83

..... ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, 1960, is an act to provide for preservation of ancient and historical monuments, archaeological sites and remains. ..... ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, 1960 (act vii of 1960) ('the act' for brevity), that the said provisions of the act were not followed properly and that no notice as contemplated under section 4(1) and 4(3) of the act was given to the ..... ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, 1960, are pending against the petitioner, in which he is shown as prime ..... sought for a declaration that the action of the respondents in interfering with peaceful and religious and spiritual activities of the petitioner and his devotees to perform 'pooja', meditation, religious discourses at 'belum caves', without acquiring any right or power under the act and the andhra pradesh ancient and historical monuments and archaeologicalsites and remains rules, 1961 ('the rules' for brevity). ..... reddy, : [1963]1scr173 , held as under:'this decision thus establishes that the mere fact that a person is the holder of an inam grant would not by itself be enough to establish that the inam grant included the grant of sub-soil rights in addition to the surface rights and that the grant of sub-soil rights would depend upon the language used in the grant. ..... is proposed to spend an amount of rs.74 lakhs, including the central government contribution of rs.62 lakhs. .....

Emca Construction Co. Thr. M.P. Gupta Vs. Archelological Survey of Ind ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 164(2009)DLT515

..... under section 3 of the 1958 act, all ancient and historical monuments which have been declared as such under the 1951 act or by section 126 of the states reorganization act, 1956 shall be deemed to be ancient and historical monuments or archaeological sites and remains declared to be of national importance for the purpose of this act. ..... as per the ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, 1958, rules, 1959 and subsequent notification issued under the rules in 1992, the permission for construction / reconstruction / addition / alteration cannot be granted. ..... this shall be in addition to and not in any way prejudice to similar declarations already made in respect of monuments at fatehpur sikri; mamallapuram; golconda fort, hyderabad, andhra pradesh; thousand pillared temple, hanamkonda, district warangal, andhra pradesh; sher shah's tomb, sasaram, bihar; rock edict of ashoka, kopbal, district raichur, karnataka; fort wall, ..... you are, therefore, requested not to undertake any construction / reconstruction / addition / alteration at the site under reference which may amount to violation of law in force.in law the sa was right. ..... ) which would apply; in terms of section 17 of the delhi act an area up to 50 m from the protected limits of a monuments shall be declared as a prohibited area and further beyond it up to 100m a regulated area and therefore the central government's notification dated 16.6.1992 will also not apply.28. .....

The Indian National Trust for Architectural and Cultural Heritage (int ...

Court : Chennai

..... act, unless the context otherwise requires,--(a) '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 monument,(iv) the gardens, if any, appurtenant to an ancient monument, and(v) the means of access to, and convenient inspection of an ancient monument; but does not ..... the changes, repairs, additions, alterations and renovations required on religious grounds mentioned in sacred texts, or as a part of holy practices laid down in religious codes shall be treated as permissible, subject to their being in accordance and consonance with the original structure and architecture, designs, aesthetics and other special feature thereof. ..... and/or precincts of historical and/or aesthetical and/or architectural and/or cultural value (hereinafter referred to as listed buildings/heritage buildings and listed precincts/heritage precincts) which will be listed in notification(s) to be issued by the government and will not apply to those which have been covered in the notification of central or state archaeological department under their act .....

Pogakula Laxmireddy and Others Vs. the Prinicipal Secretary to Govt. o ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1997AP6

..... ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains act of 1960 may be invoked as and when applicable and the connected officers may be associated suitably;d) adequate bandhobust arrangements may be made to meet any exigencies arising out of the excavation;e) prompt and affective action may be taken if any treasure is found.a detailed report may be submitted to the government.sd/- ..... ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, j969 have to be invoked as and when it becomes ..... ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, ..... the director of archaeology and museum, government of andhra pradesh also filed counter-affidavit stating that the government have not notified the chinthamanu muttam as a protected ancient monument under the a. ..... collector, kurnool was directed to take appropriate action under the provisions of indian treasure trove act as kala gnanam is of historical and archaeological importance. ..... already been observed that it is a case where chinthamanu mutt was being treated as a place of worship by all sections of the society and since the mutt is not covered by the endowments act, the government or its subordinates have no power or jurisdiction to interfere with the religious practices. ..... slate of mysore, : [1958]1scr895 (cited supra) the supreme court observed that (para 25):'article 25(2)(b) applies to all religious institutions of public character without clarification or ..... of mysore, : [1958]1scr895 . .....