- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44568-DB WA No. 1083 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH 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 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF CULTURE 24, TILAK MARG, BHAGWAN DAS LANE MANDI HOUSE, NEW DELHI, DELHI 110 001 REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDENT ARCHEOLOGIST 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, 5TH FLOOR, 'F' WING, KENDRIYA SADANA, KORAMNGALA, BENGALURU 560 034 Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44568-DB WA No. 1083 of 2025 3. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR (KARNATAKA), GOVT. OF INDIA'S NATIONAL MONUMENTS AUTHORITY, KSIMC BUILDING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU -560 010 4. 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) 1. 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44568-DB WA No. 1083 of 2025 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. 2. 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. 3. The respondents strongly contested the same. 4. 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: 1. According to the appellant, the site where construction is being raised is 151 metres from the centrally protected monument. The appellant relies - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44568-DB WA No. 1083 of 2025 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. 2. 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'. 3. 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. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks time to take instructions in this regard. 5. List on 5.11.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant now fairly states that the appellant has since reviewed the position and accepts that the site - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44568-DB WA No. 1083 of 2025 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. 5. In the aforesaid view, we are unable to fault the order dated 28.01.2025, rejecting the petitioner's request for undertaking new construction. 6. 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]. 7. 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