Article 49 of Constitution of India
Provision of Article 49 Provision of Article 49 reads as follows: 49. Protection of monuments and places and objects of […]
Constitutional law
ASI Law
Administrative Lex
Case of tomb in High Court Premises: Part 3
As the said site was declared as protected monument u/s 3 of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, in 1921, do we really bound to carry over such declaration by the British Government under AMASR Act without any value assessment on the grounds of cultural, historical, artistic, national pride, etc.? Before such assessment we should take a note that British people were only here to loot this nation and we should not glorify any of such person in any way.
Administrative Lex
Case of tomb in High Court Premises: Part 2
The Article 49 of the Constitution of India specifies that it shall be the obligation of the State to protect every monument or place or object of artistic or historic interest, declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance, from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or export, as the case may be.”
Administrative Lex
Case of tomb in High Court Premises: Part 1
1. Under Section 2(j) of the AMASR Act, respondents declared the said tomb and circular vault as ancient monument merely on account of its existence for more than 100 years. The said site does not fulfill any criteria of an ancient monument, as it contains only the remains of close person of the then former Governor. This site does not have any historical, archaeological or artistic significance which need to be protected as ancient monument by respondents on government spending.
Administrative Lex, Procedural Lex, Temple Lex
Boundaries of Public Welfare versus Heritage Preservation in India: Pataleshwar Caves Pune Case Part 2
The most critical point was the interpretation of Section 2(dc) of the Act. The court reasoned that the grade separator, which is an underpass set up to obviate traffic congestion and air pollution, constitutes a “facility for the public or a convenience for the public at large.” Since the statutory definition of “construction” in Section 2(dc) specifically excludes the provision of facilities of this nature for the public, the PMC’s work could not be regarded as prohibited construction under the Act.
Administrative Lex, Procedural Lex, Temple Lex
Boundaries of Public Welfare versus Heritage Preservation in India: Pataleshwar Caves Pune Case Part 1
The NMA called upon Deccan College Pune to furnish an Archaeological and Heritage related impact assessment report along with proposed mitigating measures. PMC made a presentation to the NMA on April 25, 2013, and subsequently provided clarifications on May 7, 2013, to address the observations made by the Authority members.
Administrative Lex, Procedural Lex, Temple Lex
Private Property Rights and Beautification of Taj Mahal
While determining the compensation, the concerned authority of the Union of India will bear in mind that the restrictions were applicable under Section 20A from 4th September, 1998.
Private Property Rights and Beautification of Taj Mahal Read Post »
Temple Lex
AMASRA: 2.64 Section 39. Repeals and savings.
2.64 Repeals and savings 2.64.1 Bare Act Provision: 39. Repeals and savings.―(1) The Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites
Temple Lex
AMASRA: 2.63 Section 38. Power to make rule.
2.63 Power to make rule 2.63.1 Bare Act Provision: 38. Power to make rule.―(1) The Central Government may, by notification
Temple Lex
AMASRA: 2.62 Section 37. Protection of action taken under the Act.
2.62 Protection of action taken under the Act 2.62.1 Bare Act Provision: 37. Protection of action taken under the Act.―No
AMASRA: 2.62 Section 37. Protection of action taken under the Act. Read Post »