SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Kar) 179

D.R.VITHAL RAO, M.N.VENKATACHALIAH
B. V. NARAYANA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates:
G.B.RAIKAR, G.P.SHIVAPRAKASH, M.N.PRAMILA, N.SANTOSH HEGDE, S.VIJAYASHANKAR

VENKATACHALIAH, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 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 ). Petitioner seek a mandamus to the State Government to consider and dispose of their representation dt. 10-4-1983 as to the question of declaring the 'attara Cutcherry', a Government building in which the Karnataka High Court is housed, as a "protected monument" under S. 4 of the said Act. The petition is filed as sequel to the Government Order No. DPAR/188/shc/82 dt. 24-3-1982 which has accorded administrative approval for the demolition of the existing 'attara Cutcherry' and for the construction of a new High Court Building on the site. This petition is before us on its reference to a Division Bench by Swami, J.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS in their efforts to avert the demolition of this ancient building, which they cherish as a cultural-heritage and as an enduring source of enrichment of the environmental beauty and cultural-tone of the City of Bangalore, now appeal to the provisions of the 'act'. They have also challenged the decision of Government as an










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top