# 11 S.C.R. 581 K. GURUPRASAD RAO v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - **Citation:** [2013] 11 S.C.R. 581 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2013-07-01 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4823 of 2013 - **Bench:** G.S. Singhvi, Ranjana Prakash Desai - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/11-s-c-r-581-k-guruprasad-rao-v-state-of-karnataka-and-others-28698 - **Pages:** 115 ## Headnote A B Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 19581 Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 C - Rules framed under - Mining operations - In the protected area around 'Protected Monuments' declared under the Central and the State Acts - Permissibility - Extent of - Writ petition in public interest praying for cancellation of mining lease and stopping of mining operations within a radius of one D kilometer from Jambunatha Temple which was declared as a protected monument under State Act - Objection to the petition on the ground that the mining operation was in terms of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder - Petition E dismissed by High Court - Appeal to Supreme Court - Constitution of Expert Committee by the Court - The Committee gave a finding that the mining activities using blasting operations at a distance of less than 200 meters from the temple has already caused irreparable damage to the F temple - The Committee made suggestions that the area surrounding the temple should be divided into two zones, i.e., Core Zone and Buffer Zone and there shall be total ban on mining within the Core Zone while mining be permitted in the Buffer Zone under the supervision of an expert body/agency - Held: Mining operations in the vicinity of protected ancient G and historical monuments and archaeological sites are regulated by 1958 Act (Central Act) or the State Act. (1961 Act) and Rules made thereunder, and not by 1957 Act or the rules 581 H 582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 11 S.C.R. A made thereunder - In the present case mining operations were without permission under 1958 and ~961 Acts and the Rules framed thereunder - Hence cannot be allowed to operate mines in the protected/regulated area - Recommendation of Expert Committee accepted and State B Government directed to implement the recommendations - Direction to Expert Committee to undertake similar exercise, as in the present case, in respect of other protected monuments in the State, having mining operations in their vicinity and submit its report to State Government - Central c Government also directed to appoint an Expert Committee to examine impact of mining on protected monuments under 1958 Act- Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 - r. 10 - Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and 0 Remains Rules, 1966 - rr. 11 to 15 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Mineral Concession Rules, 1961 - Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 - Constitution of India - Directive Principles - Art. 49. E Protection of Ancient Monuments - Mining activities around protected ancient monuments - Ban on - Effect of - On right to development - Held: Right to developmental includes whole spectrum of civil, cultural, economic, political and social process for the improvement of people's well being F and realization of their full potential - In view of the principle of sustainable development, the protection of ancient monuments has necessarily to be kept in mind, while carrying out development activities - Principle of sustainable G H development. Public Interest Litigation - Power of Supreme Court - To issue directions, which may appear to be contrary to the statutes - Scope of. Res Judicata - Applicability of - Held: In absence of K. GURUPRASAD RAO v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 583 record of the previous proceedings, principle of res judicata A cannot be applied in the present case. Jambunatha Temple, which was built in the year 1540 on Jambunath Hill in the State of Kerala, was declared as a 'Protected Monument' by the Government of- Karnataka 8 u/s. 4 of Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961. By a Notification dated 13.9.1991 an area of 9 acres 12 cents on all four sides of the Temple was declared as a 'Protected Area'. By another Notification ## Text _Characters 0–39,918 of 206,781. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39918 for what follows._ (2013] 11 S.C.R. 581 K. GURUPRASAD RAO v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 4823 of 2013) JULY 01, 2013 [G.S. SINGHVI AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] A B Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 19581 Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 C - Rules framed under - Mining operations - In the protected area around 'Protected Monuments' declared under the Central and the State Acts - Permissibility - Extent of - Writ petition in public interest praying for cancellation of mining lease and stopping of mining operations within a radius of one D kilometer from Jambunatha Temple which was declared as a protected monument under State Act - Objection to the petition on the ground that the mining operation was in terms of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder - Petition E dismissed by High Court - Appeal to Supreme Court - Constitution of Expert Committee by the Court - The Committee gave a finding that the mining activities using blasting operations at a distance of less than 200 meters from the temple has already caused irreparable damage to the F temple - The Committee made suggestions that the area surrounding the temple should be divided into two zones, i.e., Core Zone and Buffer Zone and there shall be total ban on mining within the Core Zone while mining be permitted in the Buffer Zone under the supervision of an expert body/agency - Held: Mining operations in the vicinity of protected ancient G and historical monuments and archaeological sites are regulated by 1958 Act (Central Act) or the State Act. (1961 Act) and Rules made thereunder, and not by 1957 Act or the rules 581 H 582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 11 S.C.R. A made thereunder - In the present case mining operations were without permission under 1958 and ~961 Acts and the Rules framed thereunder - Hence cannot be allowed to operate mines in the protected/regulated area - Recommendation of Expert Committee accepted and State B Government directed to implement the recommendations - Direction to Expert Committee to undertake similar exercise, as in the present case, in respect of other protected monuments in the State, having mining operations in their vicinity and submit its report to State Government - Central c Government also directed to appoint an Expert Committee to examine impact of mining on protected monuments under 1958 Act- Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 - r. 10 - Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and 0 Remains Rules, 1966 - rr. 11 to 15 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Mineral Concession Rules, 1961 - Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 - Constitution of India - Directive Principles - Art. 49. E Protection of Ancient Monuments - Mining activities around protected ancient monuments - Ban on - Effect of - On right to development - Held: Right to developmental includes whole spectrum of civil, cultural, economic, political and social process for the improvement of people's well being F and realization of their full potential - In view of the principle of sustainable development, the protection of ancient monuments has necessarily to be kept in mind, while carrying out development activities - Principle of sustainable G H development. Public Interest Litigation - Power of Supreme Court - To issue directions, which may appear to be contrary to the statutes - Scope of. Res Judicata - Applicability of - Held: In absence of K. GURUPRASAD RAO v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 583 record of the previous proceedings, principle of res judicata A cannot be applied in the present case. Jambunatha Temple, which was built in the year 1540 on Jambunath Hill in the State of Kerala, was declared as a 'Protected Monument' by the Government of- Karnataka 8 u/s. 4 of Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961. By a Notification dated 13.9.1991 an area of 9 acres 12 cents on all four sides of the Temple was declared as a 'Protected Area'. By another Notification dated 7 .12.1996, C the State Government declared an area within the radius of 200 meters from the periphery and precincts of the Temple a 'Safe Zone' where no mining activity could be conducted. The Director of Ancient Monuments after inspecting the Temple in 2003, found that mining activity was causing damage to the structure of the Temple. D Thereafter, notice was issued by Asstt. Commissioner Endowments to Respondent No. 4, (mining lease-holder) to stop mining activities within a radius of one kilometer from the temple. On the other hand Ministry of Environment and Forests, of Central Government E accorded permission to respondent No. 4 to increase the production of ironore from 0.6 million tonnes per annum to 1.5 million tonnes. The appellant filed writ petition before High Court in F public interest and prayed for cancellation of mining lease granted to respondent No. 4 and for issuing mandamus to the official respondent to stop mining activity within a radius of one kilometer from the temple. He also sought for direction to the official of Archaeological Survey of G India (respondent No.9) to take steps for restoration of the Temple to its original state. Respondent No. 4 filed objection stating that the petition was barred by res judicata as a writ petition with similar prayer was dismissed by the High Court and that H 584. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R. A order had attained finality. He further took the plea that no blasting operations were being conducted within 200 meters radius of the temple and precautionary measures were taken to prevent any damage to the temple. High Court directed official respondents to submit a report as B to whether the area on which respondent No. 4 was carrying on mining operation was located within the prohibitory distance of 200 meters. The report was submitted stating that no mining was done within 200 meters radius of the Temple. The High Court, accepting c the report, dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. Objections were filed in the appeal that the mining was being done as per the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957, the D Mineral Concession Rules, 1961 and Minerals Conservation and Development Rules, 1988. During pendency of the appeal, the Court directed respondent No. 9 to inspect the site of the temple. After E inspection of the site on behalf of respondent No. 9, Inspection report was submitted showing damage caused to the Temple due to mining activities. The Court also ordered impleadment of the Superintending Archaeologist of the State of Karnataka, and other mining F industries doing mining operations in the area and stayed the mining operations within a radius of 2 kilometers from the temple. The Court further appointed an Expert Committee. The Committee further took help from Central Institute of G Mining and Fuel Research for determination of safe blasting parameters to avoid damage to the Temple, and National Institute of Technology, Karnataka for assessment of the impact of the blasting operations carried out in iron-ore mines on the Temple and safe H K. GURUPRASAD RAO v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 585 limiting distance for blasting activity in mines. The two A institutes after carrying out scientific investigations submitted their reports to the Expert Committee. Thereafter the Committee submitted its report to the Court. The objections to the report of the Expert Committee were also filed. B Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. There is no valid ground to entertain the objection of res judicata because the official and private C respondents have not filed the pleadings -0f Writ Petition on the same issue, which is said to have been dismissed by the High Court and without going through the same, it is not possible for this Court to record a finding that the appellant should be non-suited because a similar petition had been dismissed by the High Court. [Para 63] (662-G-H] D 2.1. None of the provisions contained in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder regulate mining operations/activities in the vicinity of ancient and E historical monuments and archaeological sites. This subject is exclusively governed by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains, Act, 1957 and similar enactments made by the State Legislatures including the Karnataka Ancient and F Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961. Like the 1958 Act, the Karnataka Act also provides for declaration by the Government of any ancient monument as a "Protected Monument". Both the Central Government and the State Government have G framed rules for grant of permission/licence in the prescribed form to undertake any mining operations in a protected and/or regulated area. Rule 10 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules,1959 which has been framed under Section 38 of the 1958 Act and Rules 11 to 15 of the Karnataka Ancient H ·A 586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R. and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1966 provide that no person shall undertake any mining operations in a regulated area other than on the strength of a licence granted by the competent authority, i.e., the Director. The material placed B on record of this appeal does not show that the private respondents have obtained such licence under the Karnataka Rules for permission to undertake mining operations within the prohibited and/or regulated area. Therefore, they cannot be allowed to operate mines in the C protected and/or regulated area. [Para 68) [665-B-E] 2.2. The plea of the private respondents that the report of the Expert Committee should not be accepted because the same is contrary to the recommendations 0 made by the two expert bodies i.e. Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR) and National Institute of Technology, Karnataka (NIT) is not acceptable because the Committee had thoroughly scrutinised the reports se,nt by the two expert bodies, then decided that the area surrounding the temple should be divided into two E zones, i.e., Core Zone and Buffer Zone and there shall be total ban on mining within the Core Zone while mining be permitted in the Buffer Zone under the supervision of an expert body/agency. [Para 69) (665-F-H; 666-A] F 2.3. The Expert Committee availed the services of Indian National Trust for Arts and Cultural Heritage (INTACH), Bangalore, Karnataka Remote Sensing Application Centre, ISRO, CIMFR, Dhanbad and NIT. In paragraph IV of its report under the heading G DISCUSSIONS, the Committee unanimously agreed that the mining operations carried out using blasting operations at a distance of less than 200 meters from the temple have already caused irreparable damage to the temple and the eco-environs of its immediate H neighbourhood. The Committee noted that the study K. GURUPRASAD RAO v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 587 submitted by Karnataka Remote Sensing Application A Centre, ISRO, Bangalore dealt with the mining activities carried out within a radius of one kilometer and two kilometers and illustrated the damage caused to the temple and its immediate environs. The Committee then discussed the conservation plan prepared by INTACH, B Bangalore and observed that a sum of Rs.3,43,19,160 would be required for bringing the temple to its original condition so that the same may regain its past glory. The Committee then noted that the investigating agencies, i.e., CIMFR, Dhanbad and NIT had conducted experimental c blasts beyond 200 meters whereas Karnataka Remote Sensing Application Centre had indicated that one of the mines exists within a horizontal distance of 55 meters from the temple premises on the eastern side and, thus, the impact of blasting operation cannot be fully 0 understood and assessed scientifically by the present investigation. The Committee also observed that many of the trial blasts conducted by the investigating agencies had locations having free faces of the working benches and opined that the result of such investigation would E show minimum or no impact on architecturally sensitive temple. The Committee finally declined to accept the suggestions given by CIMFR, Dhanbad and NIT to restrict the mining operations/activities only up to a distance of 200 to 300 meters from the temple because the data recorded by the expert bodies were based on F experimental blasts conducted at individual sites and there was no evaluation/assessment of the cumulative or compounded impact of multiple blasting at different places and altitudes. The Committee noted that the mining operations involving multiple blasting by different G leaseholders had already caused substantial damage to the protected monument and the surrounding environment. [Para 87) [688-G-H; 689-A-H] 2.4. The detailed reasons recorded by the Committee, H 588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R. A for not accepting the recommendations of the expert bodies about the distance up to which mining should not be allowed are correct and those recommendations cannot be relied upon for accepting the plea that the recommendations made by the Expert Committee should B be rejected. [Para 88] [690-A-B] 2.5. The Committee's recommendations are not in conflict with the provisions of the 1957 Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The 1959 Rules and the Karnataka C Rules provide for grant of permission/licence for mining in the prohibited/regulated/protected area but the documents produced before this Court do not show that the competent authority had granted permission/licence to any of the private respondents for undertaking mining operations which have the effect of damaging the temple D in question. That apart, the distance criteria prescribed in the 1958 Act, the Karnataka Act and the Rules framed thereunder has little or no bearing on deciding the question of restricting the mining operations near the protected monument which has already suffered E extensive damage due to such operations. [Para 88] [690C-E] 2.6. The plea that ban on mining operations/activities in the Core Zone would adversely impact iron ore supply F and will also cause financial loss to the leaseholders as well as the State is liable to be rejected, keeping in view larger public interest and the interest of future generations. This Court has often used the principle of sustainable development to balance the requirement of G development and environmental protection and issued several directions for protection of natural resources including air, water, forest, flora and fauna as also wildlife. The Court has also recognized that the right to deve~opment includes the whole spectrum of civil, cultural, economic, political and social process, for the H K. GURUPRASAD .RAO v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 589 improvement of peoples well being and realization of A their full potential. [Para 89] [690-F-H; 691-A] Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 281: 1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 507; Ve/fore Citizens' Welfare Forum vs. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647: 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 241; Amritlal Athubhai Shah vs. Union Government of India (1976) 4 SCC 108: 1977 (1) SCR 372 - relied on. B 2.7. Thus, the protection of ancient monuments has necessarily to be kept in mind while carrying out C development activities. The need for ensuring protection and preservation of the ancient monuments for the benefit of future generations has to be balanced with the benefits which may accrue from mining and other development related activities. Therefore, the D recommendations and suggestions made by the Expert Committee for creation of Core Zone and Buffer Zone appropriately create this balance. While mining activity is sure to create financial wealth for the leaseholders and also the State, the immense cultural and historic wealth, E not to mention the wealth of information which the temple provides cannot be ignored and every effort has to be made to protect the temple. [Para 91] [693-G-H; 694-A-B] 2.8. The plea that mining can be permitted beyond the distance of 300 meters from the temple by using Ripper Dozer and Rock Breaker machines (as the use of Ripper Dozer and Rock Breaker will not produce vibration which may cause harm to the temple), is not liable to be accepted. The Expert Committee has already indicated that mining in the Buffer Zone may be permitted with G controlled blasting or without blasting by using Ripper Dozer/Rock Breaker or any other machinery and taking adequate measures towards generation, propagation, suppression and deposition of airborne dust to be closely monitored by experts. [P~ 92] [694-C-E] F H 590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R. A 2.9. The report of the Expert Committee is accepted and the State Government is directed to implement the recommendations contained in Part V thereof including the recommendation relating to creation of Corpus Fund of Rs.3,43,19,160 which shall be utilized for implementing s the conservation plan for the temple. However, it is made clear that respondent No.18 shall be free to operate the Beneficiation plant, subject to the condition that it shall procure raw material only through E-auction mode. [Para 93] [694-F-G] c 3.1. With a view to ensure that other protected monuments in the State do not suffer the fate of the temple, it is directed that the Expert Committee appointed by this Court shall undertake similar exercise in respect <>f other protected monuments in the State, in whose D vicinity mining operations are being undertaken and submit report to the State Government within a maximum period of nine months. The State Government shall release a sum of Rs.30 lacs in favour of the Committee to meet the expenses of survey, investigation etc. The E report submitted by the Committee shall be considered by the Government within next two months and appropriate order be passed. [Para 94] [694-H; 695-A-C] 3.2. Government of India will also appoint an expert F committee/group to examine the impact of mining on the monuments declared as protected monuments under the 1958 Act and take necessary remedial measures. [Para 95] [695-D] Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC G 161: 1984 (2) SCR 67; Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of UP (1985) 2 SCC 431: 1985 (3) SCR 169; State of Bihar vs. Murad Ali Khan (1988) 4 SCC 655: 1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 455; Tarun Bharat Sangh vs. Union of India 1992 Supp (2) SCC 448; M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India H (1996) 8 SCC 462: 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 806; M.C. Mehta """' K. GURUPRASAD RAO v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 591 (Taj Trapezium Matter) vs. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 353: A 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 973; M.C. Mehta (Taj Trapezium Pollution) vs. Union of India (2001) 9 sec 235; M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 118: 2004 (3) SCR 128; Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat (·1987) 1 SCC 213: 1987 (1) SCR 562; M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (2009) 6 B SCC 142; Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409: 1998 (2) SeR 795; M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395: 1987 (1) SCR 819; Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. vs. Ministry of Environment and Forest 2013 (6) sec 476 - relied on. Essar Oil Ltd. vs. Halar Utkarsh Samiti (2004) 2 SCC 392: 2004 (1) SCR 808 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 2004 (1) SCR 808 Paras 70, 73 1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 507 Para 71 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 241 Para 72 1984 (2) SCR 67 Para 74 1985 (3) SCR 169 Para 75 1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 455 Para 76 1992 Supp (2) sec 448 Para 77 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 806 Para 78 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 973 Para 79 (2001 > 9 sec 235 Para 80 2004 (3) SCR 128 Para 81 1987 (1) SCR 562 Para 81 (2009) 6 sec 142 Para 82 c D E F G H A B 592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R. 1998 (2) SCR 795 1987 (1) SCR 819 2013 (6) sec 476 1977 (1) SCR 372 Para 84 Para 85 Para 90 Para 90 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4823 of 2013. From the Judgment & Order dated 06.08.2009 of the High c Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in WP No. 9512 of 2009. U.U. Lalit, G.V. Chandrashekar, N.K. Verma, Sandeep Narain, Balaji Srinivasan, Jaikriti S. Jadeja, A.D.N. Rao, Anitha Shenoy, Kiran Suri, S.J. Amith, Nakibur Rahman Barbhuiya, 0 Ranjana Narayan, Gaurav Sharma, S.K. Kulkuarni, Ankur S. Kulkarni for the appearing parties. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. With the hope of their immortalization, several Emperors, Kings and other rich people got built temples, churches, mosques and other buildings in different parts of the world including India. Many of these structures are not only marvels of architecture, but also represent the culture and F heritage of the particular place and period. With the passage of time, these structures acquired the status of historical monuments, the preservation and protection of which has become a herculean task for successive generations. G Legislations in other countries 3. The issue of preservation and protection of ancient and historical monuments has been a matter of concern for the Governments and private individuals alike. In his work titled H Preserving Archaeological Sites and Monuments, Henry K. GURUPRASAD RAO v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 593 [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] Cleere, World Heritage Coordinator, International Council on A Monuments and Sites, Paris and Visiting Professor, Institute of Archaeology UCL, London has mentioned that the first law on the subject was enacted in Sweden in 1666 and professional agencies were set up to implement the same. Several other countries enacted similar legislative instruments in 17th and B 18th centuries. The United Kingdom enacted first Ancient Monuments Protection Act in 1882. France did so in 1913. The earliest Japanese legislation, the Law for the Preservation of Ancient Temples and Shrines, was enacted in 1897 and the United States waited until 1906 before its Federal Antiquities c Act came into force. Their pre-hispanic civilizations were highly symbolic for the cultural identities of the countries that emerged after the independence struggles in Latin America during the first half of the nineteenth century, just as its Hellenic past grandeur was the material expression of Greek national identity. o It is therefore not surprising that preservation of the remains of these cultures was given a high priority by the new nations. In 1821, Mexico passed the first law to preserve and protect the country's archaeological heritage. In the same year Peru shook itself free from Spanish rule and in 1822 a Supreme Decree E was published, forbidding any trade in ancient relics. 4. By the outbreak of World War I in 1914 almost every European country (with the notable exception of Belgium) and most of the major countries around the world had some form of antiquities protection and preservation legislation. Legislation had also been introduced by European colonial powers in many of their overseas territories; in some cases, such as France, the metropolitan statutes were enforced in their colonies. 5. The Treaty of Versailles saw more new nations being created in Europe, and here once again preservation legislation was introduced soon after their constitutions had been approved, usually based on the systems of the major F G H 594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R. A countries such as Austria-Hungary from which they had been formed. 6. The inter-war period saw legislative protection being progressively amended and expanded in many parts of the B world. New antiquities laws were enacted in Denmark, Greece, and the United Kingdom in the 1930s. Two major statutes, covering the protection of the cultural and natural heritag~ respectively, were promulgated in Italy by the Fascist regime just before the outbreak of World War II; interestingly, both are still force in 2001. c D 7. The 1897 Japanese law was extended to all "national treasures" in 1929. The current legislation relating to the cultural heritage in Peru stems from a basic law passed in 1929, and a 1927 law covers the cultural heritage of Bolivia. 8. The creation of the USSR and the introduction of a socialist constitution led to state ownership of all cultural property being declared in a fundamental law of October 1918. (Unlike the laws of countries emerging from colonial E domination, this was motivated for ideological reasons rather than in the interests of cultural identity.) The antiquities legislation of all the countries of the post-World War II socialist bloa of central and eastern Europe, as well as that of other socialist countries such as the People's Repubiic of China, F North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba, were modeled on the basic Soviet legislation. 9. The former colonial territories of Africa and Asia introduced protective legislation, often modeled on that of their former overlords, as soon as they achieved independence. The G former British colonies in particular adopted similar laws, based on what became known as the "Westminster Model" constitution. The legislation of the British Raj was retained until improved legislative protection of the cultural heritage of India was introduced. H K. GURUPRASAD RAO v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 595 [G.S. SINGHVI, J.) 10. The second half of the twentieth century witnessed a A .continuous process of extending and improving heritage legislation across the globe. New or amended laws have been adopted by national legislatures of at least one country each year. At the international level work began between the two World Wars by the League of Nations which resulted in B organization by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) of two important international conventions designed to protect and preserve the cultural heritage, whether cultural, natural, or portable. Regional bodies such as the Council Of Europe prepared similar conventions. C 11. In 1972, UNESCO held the World Heritage Convention. One of the decisions taken in that convention was to appoint World Heritage Committee with the task of identifying the World Heritage Sites which were in danger. This was intended to 0 increase the international awareness about the threat posed to certain World Heritage Sites and to encourage counteractive measures. In the case of natural sites, ascertained dangers include the serious decline in the population of an endangered or other valuable species or the deterioration of natural beauty E or scientific value of a property by man-made activities such as logging, pollution, human settlement, mining, agriculture and major public works. Ascertained dangers for cultural properties include serious deterioration of materials, structure, ornaments or architectural coherence and the loss of historical authenticity F or cultural significance. Potential dangers for both cultural ard natural sites include development projects, armed conflicts, insufficient management systems or changes in the legal protective status of the property. In the case of cultural sites gradual changes due to geology, climate or environment can G also be potential dangers. 12. In India, the legal regime dates back to 18th century. The Governments of Bengal, Hyderabad, Madras and Mysore enacted the Bengal Regulation XIX of 1810, the Hyderabad H 596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R. A Ancient Monuments Preservation Act VIII of 1337 Fasli, the Madras Regulation VII of 1817 respectively. In the 19th century, the Government of Mysore enacted the Mysore Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1925. The extent and reach of these statutes were obviously limited to the territories of the B concerned States. 13. In 1898, the question of antiquarian exploration and research, and the necessity of taking steps for the protection of monuments and relics of antiquity within the territory C controlled by the British, received the attention of the then Government. After consulting the Local Governments, the competent legislature enacted the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 (for short, 'the 1904 Act'). The anxiety of the Government to protect monuments which were under its 0 control and also those which were in the hands of private owners is reflected in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons contained in the Bill which led to the enactment of the 1904 Act. The same reads as under: "3. The first portion of the Bill deals with protection of E "Ancient monuments" an expression which has been defined in clause 2 (now section 2). The measure will apply only to such of these as are from time to time expressly brought within its contents though being declared to be "protected monuments". A greater number of more famous F buildings in India are already in possession or under the control of the Government: but there are others worthy of preservation which are in the hands of private owners. Some of these have already been insured or are fast falling into decay. The preservation of these is the chief object of G the clause of the Bill now referred to and the provisions of the Bill are in general accordance with the policy enunciated in section 23 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 (20 of 1863), which recognises and saves the right of the Government "to prevent injury to and preserve buildings H remarkable in their antiquity and for their - historical or K. GURUPRASAD RAO v. STATE OF l