K. GURUPRASAD RAO v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted. E

2Copy pinpoint2. 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

3Copy pinpoint3. 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

p. 593 Copy page pinpoint

[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.

4Copy pinpoint4. 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. F 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. G

5Copy pinpoint5. 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 H

p. 594 Copy page pinpoint

A countries such as Austria-Hungary from which they had been formed.

6Copy pinpoint6. 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

7Copy pinpoint7. 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. D

8Copy pinpoint8. 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.

9Copy pinpoint9. 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

p. 595 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.)

10Copy pinpoint10. 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

11Copy pinpoint11. 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 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 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 also be potential dangers.

12Copy pinpoint12. 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

p. 596 Copy page pinpoint

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 concerned States.

13Copy pinpoint13. 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 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 control and also those which were in the hands of private 0 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 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 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 remarkable in their antiquity and for their - historical or

K. GURUPRASAD RAO v. STATE OF l<ARNATAKA 597 [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] architectural value or required for the convenience of the public". The power to intervene is at present limited to cases to which section 3 of the Bengal Regulation 19 of 1810 or section 3 of the Madras Regulation VII of 1817 applies. In framing the present Bill the Government Has aimed at having the necessity of good will and securing the cooperation of the owners concerned and it hopes that the action which it is proposed to take may tend rather to the encouragement than to the suppression of private effort. The Bill provides that the owner or the manager of the building which merits greater care than it has been receiving may be invited to enter into an agreement for its protection and that in the event of his refusing to come to terms the collector may proceed to acquire it compulsorily or take proper course to secure its application. It has been' made clear that there is to be no resort to compulsory acquisition in the case the monument is used in connection with religious observances or in other case until the owner has had an opportunity of entering into an agreement of the kind indicated above; and it is expressly provided that the monument maintained by the Government under the proposed Act, shall not be used for any purpose inconsistent with its character or with purpose of its foundation, and that, so far as is compatible with the object in view the public shall have access to it free of charge. By the 4th proviso of clause 11 (now section 10) it is laid down that in assessing the value of the monument for the purpose of compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) its archaeological, artistic or historical merits shall not be taken into account. The object of the Government as purchaser being to preserve at the public expense and for the public benefit an ancient monument with all its associations, it is considered that the value of those associations should not be paid for."

14Copy pinpoint14. Under the Government of India Act, 1935 the subject H

p. 598 Copy page pinpoint

A "Ancient and historical monuments; archaeological monuments; archaeological sites and remains" was included in Entry 15 of the Federal List. This was done keeping in view the provisions of the 1904 Act which was applicable to all ancient monuments and objects of archaeological, historical or artistic interest. B

15Copy pinpoint15. The members of the Constituent Assembly, which was entrusted with the task of drafting the Constitution, were very much aware of the necessity of protecting the monuments and places/objects of artistic or historic importance but they were C also conscious of the fact that the Central Government alone may not be in a position to take measures for the protection of ancient and historical monuments across the vast territory of the country. Therefore, it was decided that the States should be burdened with the responsibility of protecting the ancient and historical monuments within their territories. This is the reason 0 why the subject relating to ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains has been distributed into three different entries:

1. Entry 67 of the Union List - Ancient and historical monuments and records, and archaeological sites and remains, declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance.

2. Entry 12 of the State List - Ancient and historical monuments and records other than those declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance.

3. Entry 40 of the Concurrent List - Archaeological sites and remains other than those declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance .

. 16. By incorporating Article 49 in the Directive Principles of State Policy, the framers of the Constitution made it obligato!Y H

p. 599 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.] for the State to protect every monument or place or object of A 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. B

17Copy pinpoint17. Since the 1904 Act governed all ancient monuments whether falling in the Central field or the State field and all executive powers were vested in the Central Government, it was felt that a separate legislation should be enacted by Parliament to exclusively deal with ancient monuments of national C importance falling under Entry 67 of List I of the Seventh Schedule and the archaeological sites and remains falling under Entry 40 of List Ill. For achieving this object, Parliament enacted the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (for short, 'the 1958 Act), the preamble of 0 which reads thus:

"An act to provide for the preservation of ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance, for the regulation of archaeological excavations and for the protection of the sculptures, carvings and other like objects."

18Copy pinpoint18. Sections 2(a), (i), 0), (4) and 38(1 ), (2)(a) of the 1958 Act read as under:

"2. Definitions- In this 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, H

p. 600 Copy page pinpoint

A (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 B (iv) the means of access to, and convenient inspection of an ancient monument.

(i) "protected area" means any archaeological site and remains which is declared to be national importance by or c under this Act.

(j) "protected monument" means any ancient monument which is declared to be of national importance by or under this Act.

D 4. Power of Central Gov.ernment to declare ancient monument, etc., to be of national importance-(1) Where the Central Government is of opinion that any ancient monument or archaeological site and remains not included in section 3 is of national importance, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, give two months' notice of its intention to declare such ancient monument or archaeological site and remains to be of national importance, and a copy of every such notification shall be affixed in a conspicuous place near the monument or site and remains, as the case may be. ·

(2) Any person interested in any such ancient monument or archaeological site and remains may, within two months after the issue of the notification, objects to the declaration of the monument, or the archaeological site and remains, to be of national importance.

(3) On the expiry of the said period of two months, the Central Government may, after considering the objections, · if any, received by it, declare by notification in the Official H

p. 601 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.] Gazette, the ancient monument or the archaeological site and remains, as the case may be, to be of national importance.

· (4) A notification published under sub-section (3) shall, unless and until it is withdrawn, be conclusive evidence of the fact that the ancient monument or archaeological site and remains to which it relates is of national importance for the purposes of this Act.

38. Po¥'Jerto make rules-(1) The Central Government may, by notification, in the Official Gazette and subject to the condition of previous publication, make rule for carrying out the purposes of this Act.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-

(a) the prohibition or regulation by licensing or otherwise of mining, quarrying, excavating, blasting or any operation of a like nature near a protected monument or the construction of buildings on land adjoining such monument and the removal of unauthorised buildings."

19Copy pinpoint19. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 38 of the 1958 Act, the Central Government made the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 F (for short, 'the 1959 Rules'). Rules 2(f), 10, 31 to 35 of the 1959 . Rules read as under:

"2(f) "prohibited area• or "regulated area" means an area near or adjoining a protected monument which the Central G Government has, by notification in the Official Gazette, declared to be a prohibited area, from as the case may . be, a regulated area, for purposes of mining operation or construction or both. H

p. 602 Copy page pinpoint

A 10. Permission required for construction etc. (1) No person shall undertake any construction or mining operation with a protected area except under and in accordance with a permission granted in this behalf by the Central Government. B (2) Every application for permission under sub-rule (1) shall be made to the Central Government in Form I at least three months before the date of commencement of the construction or operation. c 31. Notice or intention to declare a prohibited or regulated area-(1) Before declaring an area near or adjoining a protected monument to be a prohibited area or a regulated area for purposes of mining operation or construction or both, the Central Government shall, by notification in the D Official Gazette, give one month's notice of its intention to do so, and a copy of such notification shall be affixed in a conspicuous place near the area.

(2) Every such notification shall specify the limits of the area which is to be so declared and shall also call for objection, if any, from interested persons.

32. Declaration of prohibited or regulated area-After the expiry of one month from the date of the notification under rule 31 and after considering the objectio9ns, if any, received within the said period, the Central Government may declare, by notification in the official Gazette, the area specified in the notification under rule 31, or any part of such area, to be a prohibited area, or as the case may be, a regulated area for purposes of mining operation or construction or both.

33. Effect of declaration of prohibited or regulated area- No person other than an archaeological officer shall undertake any mining operation or any construction- H

p. 603 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.J (a) in a prohibited area, or A

(b) in a regulated area except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted by the Director-General.

34. Application for licence-Every person intending to B undertake any mining operation or any construction in a regulated area shall apply to the Director-General in Form VI at least three months before the date of commencement of such operation or construction. c 35.Grant or refusal of licence-(1) On receipt of an · application under rule 34 the Director-General may grant a licence, or, if he is satisfied that the licence asked for should not be granted, may for reasons to be recorded, refuse to grant a licence. D

(2)Every licence granted under sub-rule (1) shall be in Form VII I and be subject to the following conditions, namely-

(a) the licence shall not be transferable. E (b) It shall be valid for the period specified therein, and

(c) Any other condition relating to the manner of carrying out the mining operation or the construction which the Director-General may specify in the licence for ensuring the safety and appearance of, and the maintenance qf the approach and access to the protected monument."

20Copy pinpoint20. The legislatures of various States including the State of Karnataka enacted separate legislations for protection and preservation of ancient monuments falling under Entry 12 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. The Karnataka Act is titled as "The Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Karnataka Act'). The Statement of Objects and Reasons H

p. 604 Copy page pinpoint

A contained in the Bill which led to enactment of the Karnataka Act reads as under:

"STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

(Karnataka Act No. 7 of 1962) B Karnataka Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 1-11-1959

In the new State of Mysore, the following Acts relating to protection and preservation of ancient monuments, etc., c are in force:-

(1) The Hyderabad Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1337F (Hyderabad Act VIII of 1337 Fasli) is in force in the Hyderabad Area;

D (2) The Mysore Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1925 (Mysore Act IX of 1925) is in force in the Mysore Area; and

(3) The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 E (Central Act VI I of 1904) is in force in all the areas of the new State of Mysore.

The Government of India have advised the State Governments not to take advantage of the provisions of the aforesaid Central Act to protect and preserve F monuments and to enact their own laws on the subject.

Recently, the Government of India have enacted the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 covering matters falling under Entry 67 G in the Union List and Entry 40 in Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.

The present Bill seeks 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, H

p. 605 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

ancient and historical monuments other than those A declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance.

The provisions of the Bill are on the lines of the corresponding provisions of the Ancient Monuments and B Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958."

21Copy pinpoint21. The preamble of the Kamataka Act and Sections 2(1), (10), 4, 31(1) and (2)(a), which have bearing on the disposal of this appeal read as under: c Preamble

"An act to provide for the preservation of ancient and historical monuments and Archaeological sites and remains and for the protection of sculptures, carvings and 0 other like objects in the State of Karnataka.

Whereas, it is expedient to provide for the preservation of ancient and historical monuments and archeologjcal sites and remains in the State of Karnataka other than those declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of E national importance, and for the protection of sculptures, carvings and other like objects;"

2. Definitions.-ln this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- F (1) "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, archeological or artistic interest and which has G 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; H

p. 606 Copy page pinpoint

A (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, 8 an ancient monument;

xxxx xxxx xxxx (10) "Protected monument" means an ancient monument which is declared to be protected by or under this Act. c

4. Power of Government to declare ancient monuments to be protected monuments.-(1) Where the Government is of opinion that any ancient monument should be declared as a protected monument; it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, give two months' notice of its intention to declare such ancient monument to be a protected monument and a copy of every such notification shall be affixed in a conspicuous place near the monument.

(2) Any person interested in any such ancient monument may within two months after the issue of the notification, object to the declaration of the monument to be a protected monument.

(3) On the expiry of the said period of two months, the F Government may, after considering the objections, if any, received by it, declare by notification in the Official Gazette, the ancient monument to be a protected monument. (4) A notification published under sub-section (3) shall, G unless and until it is withdrawn, be conclusive evidence of the fact that the ancient monument to which it relates is a protected monument for the purposes of this Act.

31. Power to make rules.-(1) The Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to the H

p. 607 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.] condition of previous publication, make rules for carrying A out the purposes of this Act.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- B

(a) the prohibition or regulation by licensing or otherwise of mining, quarrying, excavating, blasting or any operation of a like nature near a protected monument or the construction of buildings on land adjoining such monument and the removal of unauthorised buildings; C

)()()()( )()()()( xxxx"

22Copy pinpoint22. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 31 of the Karnataka Act, the State Government framed the Karnataka D Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1966 (for short, 'the Rules'). Rules 2(b), (f) and (g), 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Rules read as under:

"2.Definitions. - In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires. - E

{a) xxxx )()()()( )()()()(

(b) "Construction" of any structure includes additions to or alterations of an existing building; F (f) "Mining operation" means any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining minerals and includes quarrying, excavating minerals and includes quarrying, excavating, blasting and any operation of the like nature; G (g) "prohibited area" or "Regulated area" means an area near or adjoining a protected monument which the State Government has, by notification in the Official Gazette, declared to be a prohibited area, or, as the case may be , a regulated area, for purposes of mining operation or H

p. 608 Copy page pinpoint

A construction or both; )()()()( )()()()( )()()()(

11. Notice of intention to declare a prohibited or regulated area. - (1) before declaring an area near or B adjoining a protected monument, to be a prohibited area or a regulated area for purposes or mining operation or construction or both, the Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, give one month's notice of its intention to do so, and a copy of such notification shall be c affixed in a conspicuous place near the area.

(2) Every such notification shall specify the limit of the area which is to be so declared and shall also call for objections, if any, from interested persons. D

12. Declaration of prohibited or regulated area. -After the expiry of one month from the date of the notification under rule 11 and after considering the objections, if any, received within the said period, the Government may E declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, the area specified in the· Notification in the under rule 11 or any part, of such area, to be a prohibited area or, as the case may be, a regulated area for purposes of mining operation or construction or both .

F 13. Effect of declaration of prohibited or regulated area. - No person other than the Director shall undertake any mining operation or any construction. -

(a) in a prohibited area, or G (b) in a regulated area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of licence granted by the Director.

14. Application for licence. - Every person intending to H

p. 609 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.] undertake any mining operation or any construction in a A regulated area shall apply to the Director in Form· 11 at least three months before the date of commencement of such operation or construction.

15. Grant or refusal of licence. - ( 1) On receipt of an B application under Rule 14, the Director may grant a licence or, if he is satisfied that the licence asked for should not be granted, may for reasons to be recorded, refuse to grant a licence.

(2) Every licence granted under sub-rule (1) shall be in form C Ill and be subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(a) the licence shall not be transferable;

(b) it shall be valid for the period specified therein; and D

(c) any other condition relating to the manner of carrying out the mining operation or the construction which the Director may specify in the licence for ensuring the safety and appearance of, and the maintenance of approach and access to, the protected monument."

23Copy pinpoint23. Unfortunately, the greed of the present generation has taken toll not only of various national assets including historical and ancient monuments and like many wild life species, a number of monuments have become extinct because of unregulated mining activities/operations in the vicinity of such monuments and buildings representing heritage and culture of the past.

The facts G

24Copy pinpoint24. Jambunatheshwara Temple or Jambunatha Temple for whose protection the appellant has been making efforts for last many years was built in 1540 on Jambunath Hill which falls in Hospet Taluk, District Bellary (Karnataka). The temple was built H

p. 610 Copy page pinpoint

A with massive granite blocks in typical trabeate system, characterized by the predominant use of columns and beams as main load bearing members. It is situated 4.5. kilometers southeast of Taluk Hospet, District Bellary (Karnataka) on a hillock at a height of 800 ft. and is surrounded by a range of hillocks rich in good iron-ore. The main temple facing east, consists of a garbhagriha, a sukanasi and an antarala surround.ed by a closed ambulatory passage, a navaranga with two entrance mandapas and a maha ranga mandapa all enclosed by a high parakara. The temple rises over a high double adhishthana with ornate mouldings which is typical of Vijayanagara style and period. The wall of the garbhagriha and antarala is decorated with kumuda panjaras set between a pair of pilasters. The ornate eave is decorated with kudu with human heads and kirtimukhas at the top. The sanctum houses D a sivalinga over a circular peetha. There are several subsidiary structures surrounding the main temple. There are modern structures built around the temple for the sake of pilgrims and devotees. To the south of the temple are two sub-shrines dedicated to Veerabhadra and Brahma respectively in front of which is a well which gets water through a perennial source from the hillock and serves the needs of the temple and pilgrims. The water from this well is believed to have medicinal and curative properties and hence considered very sacred by the pilgrims. The temple has superstructure built of brick and lime mortar over its sanctum and entrance mandapas. The pillars in the navaranga and maha ranga mandapas are typical of Vijayanagara period with their cubical mouldings depicting carvings of various divinities of Saiva, Sakta and other sects, besides social themes. G

25Copy pinpoint25. The temple was declared as a Protected Monument by the Government of Karnataka under Section 4 of the Karnataka Act. By notification dated 13.9.1991, an area of 9 acres 12 cents in Survey No.198 surrounded by Survey H No.115-B on all four sides of the temple was declared as

p. 611 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.] 'Protected Area'. By another notification dated 7 .12.1996, the A State Government declared an area within the radius of 200 meters from the periphery and precincts of Jambunatheswara temple as 'Safe Zone' where no mining activity could be conducted. B

26Copy pinpoint26. On 5.4.1952, Shri R. Gangadharappa was granted a mining lease for an area measuring 182.45 hectares near Jambunatheswara temple for extraction of iron ore for a period of 30 years. The lease wasrenewed on 4.2.1982 for a further period of 30 years in the name of his legal heir Sri c R.Pampapathy. During the currency of lease (extended period), Sri R. Pampapathy died and his wife R.Mallamma was permitted to carry on the mining operations in the name of M/ s. Aarpee Iron Ore Mines, Bellary (respondent No.4). The lessee was also granted permission under Section 2 of the 0 Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short, 'the 1980 Act') to undertake mining operations over forest measuring 101.51 hectares.

27Copy pinpoint27. In May, 2003, the Director of Ancient Monuments , inspected the temple in the presence of Senior Geologist, E Department of Mines and Geology, Karnataka and found that the mining activity was causing damage to the structure of the temple. Thereupon he wrote letter dated 15.7.2003 to the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments to take action for stopping the mining activities within a radius of one kilometer F from the temple. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner sent letter dated 29.9.2003 to respondent No.4. He also issued notice dated 16.1.2004 to respondent No.4 informing the latter that if the needful is not done, action will be taken under Section 133 Cr.P.C. G

28Copy pinpoint28. While the officers of the Karnataka Government entrusted with the task of protecting ancient monuments were taking steps to curb the mining activities within a radius of one kilometer from the temple; the Ministry of Environment and H

p. 612 Copy page pinpoint

A Forests, Government of India accorded permission to respondent No.4 to increase the production of iron ore from 0.6 million tonnes per annum to 1.5 million tonnes per annum.

29Copy pinpoint29. The appellant, who is an Advocate by profession and 8 is practicing at Hospet, Bellary, felt that unless mining activities are stopped in the vicinity of the temple, a centuries old ancient monument may be totally destroyed. Therefore, he filed Writ Petition No.9512/2009 before the Karnataka High Court in public interest and prayed for cancellation of the mining lease c granted to respondent No.4 and for issue of a mandamus to the official respondents to stop mining activity within one kilometer from the temple. He further prayed for issue of a direction to Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India (respondent No.9) to take steps for restoration D of the temple to its original state. In paragraphs 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the writ petition, the appellant made the following averments:

"1. The fourth respondent herein was granted permission for mining in Sy. No 115 in Jambhunathahalli, E Hospet by the Director of Mines and Geology, the second respondent herein. In January, 2008 the Ministry of Environment and Forest has given permission for expansion of mining activity. The lease area of the mine is about 101.51 hectares. Copy of the mining lease is produced at ANNEXURE-A. The central Government has given environmental clearance for the mining operations on the basis of wrong information furnished by the third respondent. Copy of the permission given by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and for renewal of the mining lease is produced at ANNEXURE- B.

2. The fourth respondent also obtained permission for adopting a system of deep hole blasting for the mining area from the Directorate General of Mines Safety. Copy of the permission letter is produced at ANNEXURE-C. In H

p. 613 Copy page pinpoint

- [GS. SINGHVI, J.] January 2008, the fourth respondent also obtained A clearance for enhancement of production capacity of iron ore production from the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Copy of the permission is produced at ANNEXURE-0. B

5. The mining operation conducted by the fourth respondent among others consists of blasting, which is done by wagon blasting even though permission is given for "opencast and mechanized blasting". The lessee in question has been using wagon blasting. Thi_s type of blasting is not being c used and is not in vogue. The wagon blasting results in loud explosion with a deafening sound. The dust spreads to all the nearby places. On account of this, the temple has suffered the most. The column of the outer walls of the temple has turned brown on account of the soil residue 0 settling on the walls. The explosion also causes tremors, which is felt as far as Hospet. The residents of Hospet also feel the intensity of the tremor. Needless to say, the temple, which is almost 100 meters from the mining area is bearing the brunt of these activities. The walls of the temple E have cracked and may collapse if mining activities continue.

6. Inside the temple, there is a well. The waterin the well is said to contain many medicinal properties. In fact, devotees throng to the temple to collect the water. F However, in recent years, the water has turned brown because of the dust. The number of devotees who come to visit the temple has also been reduced to a large extent on account of mining activities and the dust pollutes the nearby areas." G

30Copy pinpoint30. Respondent No.4 filed objections and pleaded that the writ petition should not be entertained because Writ Petition No.2706711998 filed with similar prayer was dismissed by the High Court on 7.8.2000 and that order has become final. It was H

p. 614 Copy page pinpoint

A further pleaded that no blasting operations were being conducted within 200 meters radius of the temple and precautionary measures have been taken to prevent any damage to the temple. An additional plea taken by respondent No.4 was that the writ petition was highly belated. B

31Copy pinpoint31. After taking cognizance of the averments contained in the writ petition, the Division Bench of the High Court directed respondent Nos.2, 3, 8, 10, 12 and 13 (in the writ petition) to submit a report as to whether the area on which respondent C No.4 is carrying on mining operation was located within the prohibitory distance of 200 meters specified in the notification issued by the State Government under the Karnataka Act. The concerned respondents inspected the site and submitted a report stating therein that no mining was being done within 200 D meters from the temple. The relevant portions of the report are extracted below:

"Sub:- Brief report regarding mining activities of Mis. R. Mallamma M.L.No.1806 Hospet Taluk, Bellary District.

E Ref: Head Office Telephone Message Dt. 28.05.2009.

With reference to above subject as per the directions inspected M.L.No. 1806 area along with J.E of this Office on 28.05.2009.

F At time of inspection assistance mines Manager Sri. Phanikumar present on this spot. It is observed that mining lease area of M.LNo. 1806 is just running adjust to the periphery of Sri. Jambunatheshwar Temple. (Sy.No. 198). It is also observed at the time of inspection there was no G mining activity in a mining pit which is located at 130 Mtr. from the temple. At present in the said lease mining operation are going on at about 1 Km. away towards East from the temple.

H After verifying available records in the office the

p. 615 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.] Government order NO.Cl.65.MMM.96 Dt. 07.12.1996 A state that mining operations should beyond 200 meters away from the periphery of the temple.(Copy enclosed)

It further submitted that on 12.10.2007 this Office in the presence of revenue department and police department 8 carried out joint inspection of M/s. R. Mallamma leased area and issued a notice to the said lease stating that they should not carry out any mining activity within 300 Mtrs. from the periphery of the temple.

Further, according to the direction from the Director of C Mines and Geology vide letter No. Department of Mines and Geology/ML/1806/Permit/2007-08/6481 dated 22.02.2008 inspection was carried out and report was submitted stating that said lessee is carrying out mining activity 1.7 km. away from the periphery of the temple, D (copy enclosed).

Again it is submitted that on 30.08.2008 notice was issued to the said lessee. (Copy enclosed). E This report is submitted for your kind information and further necessary action."

32Copy pinpoint32. The High Court accepted the report and dismissed the writ petition without dealing with any of the issues raised by the appellant. F

33Copy pinpoint33. The appellant has questioned the order of the High Court primarily on the ground of non-consideration of the factual assertion made by him about the mining activity of respondent No.4 within 200 meters of the temple by Wagon Blasting G Method. He has also pointed out that as per the report submitted before the High Court, respondent No.4 had dug mining pit at 130 meters from the temple resulting.in erosion of the soil in and around the temple. H

p. 616 Copy page pinpoint

34Copy pinpoint34. Notice of the special leave petition out of which this appeal arises was issued on 9.7.2010 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6 to 8 were directed to ensure that no mining activity is undertaken or continued at the site in question.

35Copy pinpoint35. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondent No.4, the plea of res judicata raised before the High Court has been reiterated and it has been averred that no mining activity is being conducted within the Safe Zone declared by the State of Government. According to respondent c No.4, the mining lease deed executed in its favour restricts mining operation within a distance of 50 meters from any public structure and in the absence of any other prohibition under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, 'the 1957 Act'), the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 D or the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, the Court cannot prohibit the carrying on of the mining operations within a radius of one kilometer from the temple in question. Respondent No.4 pointed out that several other leaseholders are carrying operation within a distance of one kilometer from E the temple. Respondent No.4 also relied upon report dated 9.4.2007 prepared by Deputy Director of Mines and Geology who had inspected the site and pleaded that no damage was done to the temple due to mining operations. Respondent No.4 denied that it was doing mining by the Wagon Blasting Method F and emphasized that it had employed controlled blasting method.

36Copy pinpoint36. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed order dated 8.11.2010 and directed respondent No.9 to personally inspect the site of the temple and the area in which mining activities were going on prior to 9.7.2010 and submit a report indicating whether such activities had affected the temple. In compliance of that order, respondent No.9 made reference to M/s. CIVIL-AID Technoclinic Private Limited, Bangalore to assess the structural stability of the monument due to surrounding mining activities. Thereupon the firm carried out

p. 617 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.] detailed inspection along with concerned officials in November A and summarised the outcome of inspection in the following words:

"PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS B Main Temple Structure:

1. Visible settlement of foundation system was observed alround the temple at various locations.

2. Non alignment was observed in plinth level stone c beams in most of the locations.

3. Wide gaps were observed between the stone panel joints in most of the locations.

4. Cracks were observed in stone panels at isolated locations.

5. Wide gaps were observed in stone members at beam bearing regions in most of the locations.

6. Non alignment was observed in stone beams between the spans at ceiling level in most of the. locations.

7. Cracks were observed in stone capital below the beam bearing region at various locations. F

8. The wide gaps between the stone members were observed to be filed with cement mortar.

9. It is observed that recently stone members were observed to be cleaned with chemical wash. G

10. WPC over the roof slab was observed to be severely deteriorated in the form of hapazardous cracks. H

p. 618 Copy page pinpoint

A 11 . Wide cracks were observed along the stone beam line over the roof slab.

12. Severe undulations were observed over the roof slab in most of the locations.

B 13. Accumulation of dead leaves and growth of vegetation was observed over the roof slab at various locations.

14. No visible abnormalities was observed in well." c "Peripheral structures:

1. Ab.sence of plinth protection was observed alround the building.

D 2. Severe growth of vegetation was observed alround the building.

3. Inclined cracks were observed in masonry wall at various locations.

E 4. Severe separation cracks were observed at the interface of wall and slab junction.

5. Debonding and spalling of plaster was observed in masonry wall at various locations. F

6. Damp patches were observed in masonry wal.ls at various locations.

7. Deterioration of WPC was observed over the roof slab." G "Inferences:

Following inferences are drawn, based on the detailed inspection:

H 1. The visible distress observed in stone members of

p. 619 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.] structure is essentially due to one or the combination of A following factors:

Prolonged age effect.

Disturbance caused to the structure due to nearby mining activities. B

Inadequate/ineffective maintenance over a period of time.

2. Severe cracks observed in peripheral structures C are mainly due to disturbances caused by surrounding mining activities and inadequate maintenance over a period of time."

"Recommendations: D Following recommendations are made, based on the above inferences:

1. In view of the severity of the structural/functional distress and considering structural type of temple structure, it is recommended to carryout mining activities away from temple, atleast 1 km radius around the temple to minimize the- possible vibration.

Further, it is recommended to take up the appropriate restoration of the structure, considering long term durability and safety of the structure after carrying out detailed scientific study of the structure.

2. The deteriorated WPC over the roof slab shall be removed and replaced with appropriate light weight waterproof treatment in order to relieve the loads.

3. The possible endanger to temple structure due to water storage depression in nearby in mining area shall be avoided by creating suitable drainage H

p. 620 Copy page pinpoint

A facility with appropriate benching and pitching to avoid possible collapse of disturbed hillock towards temple structure.

4. Periodic maintenance of the temple structure shall be adhered regularly." B The report prepared by respondent No.9 is accompanied by several photographs which provide visual evidence of the damage caused to the temple due to mining activities.

c 37. On 14.1.2011, the Court ordered impleadment of the Superintending Archaeologist of the State of Karnataka as a party and directed him to file an affidavit on the present status of the temple specifying therein whether the mining activities have already damaged the same. Simultaneously, respondent No.9 was directed to indicate whether other lessees were 0 carrying on mining operations in the vicinity of the temple and disclose their names.

38Copy pinpoint38. By an order dated 11.3.2011, the Court ordered impleadment of M/s. Mysore Minerals Ltd., Smt.R. Mallamma, E Sri R.J. Pattabhiramaih, Sri Allam Basavaraj, M/s. R.B.S.S.N. Das, Sri R. Charuchandra, Sri H.N. Prem Kumar and M/s Kariganur Mineral Mining Industries as parties and also stayed mining operations within a radius of 2 kilometers from the temple. F

39Copy pinpoint39. After service of notice, respondent No.4 filed statement of objections on 31.8.2010, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 filed their objections on 24.9.2011, respondent No.9 filed affidavit dated 2.10.2010, respondent No.7 filed counter affidavit dated G 5.1.2011, respondent No.14 filed affidavit dated 17 .2.2011 and respondent No.18 filed counter affidavit dated 15.4.2011.

40Copy pinpoint40. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondent No.4, the maintainability of the appeal has been H questioned on the ground that similar issue had been raised

p. 621 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.] before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 27027 of 1998 and A the same was dismissed vide order dated 7.8.2000. Respondent No.4 has also accused the appellant of seeking the Court's intervention after a long time gap of 27 years. On merits, the case of respondent No.4 is that mining activity is being done strictly in accordance with the provisions of the 1957 B Act, the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 and they do not contain any prohibition on mining operations within a radius of one kilometer from the temple. Respondent No.4 has also relied upon report dated 9.4.2007 prepared by Deputy Director of C Mines and Geology and averred that no damage has been caused to the temple due to mining operations. It is also the case of respondent No.4 that mining is being done by controlled blasting and not by Wagon Blasting Method. D

41Copy pinpoint41. The thrust of the objections, affidavits and counter affidavits filed by other respondents is that mining is being done as per the provisions of the 1957 Act and the Rules framed thereunder and there is no legal justification for imposing any restriction in violation of that Act and the Rules. E

42Copy pinpoint42. One significant aspect of the pleadings which deserves to be mentioned at this stage is that the State of Kamataka and its officers have taken contradictory stands on the issue of the nature of mining operations undertaken by respondent No.4. While respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 have claimed that F respondent No.4 has been carrying out mining by controlled blasting in accordance with the permission granted by the Director General of Mines Safety and not by the Wagon Blasting Method, in affidavit dated 14.2.2011 filed by him, Shri B.M. Chikkamaregowda, Deputy Director, Department of G Archaeology and Museums, Kamalapur, Hospet Taluk, Bellary District has unequivocally contradicted this by making the following statement:

"4. I further humbly submit that, during the inspection, it was H

p. 622 Copy page pinpoint

A observed that the mining activity has been carried out to the east south-east of the temple at a distance of less than 100 meters from the periphery of the temple and extending further to the east and south-east Plate IV (a) & (b). It appears that initially the mining was carried out nearer to B the temple continually over a period of decades which has resulted in the formation of a huge crater at about a distance of 100 meters from the temple on the east and later on the mining activity has been extended further east clearly indicated by the stepped terrace formation in a c semi-circular pattern surroundi.ng the crater Plate V (a) & (b). Now only a high and narrow ridge divides the temple and the crater. Due to continuous mining, the depth of the crater has reached almost the level of the temple foundation and has become the source of accumulation of rain water as well as rise in sub-soil water level. This has resulted in the underground seepage of water towards the temple which is evidenced by dampness in some of the subsidiary shrines on the southern side.

5. I further submit that as per the Gazette Notification, an area of 9 aces 12 cents in Survey Number 198 surrounded by on all four sides by Sy.No.115-B, has been declared as protected area and in the absence of clear demarcation of the protected boundary, it could not be ascertained whether the mining activity encroached the protected area also. However, it is certain that the mining activity was carried out in the prohibited area within a distance of 80. As per the provisions of the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1991 (Karnataka Act of 1962), G under Section 20, no construction or mining, quarrying, excavating, Wasting or any operation of a like nature is permitted without the permission of the Government. The Director, Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Karnataka who was present during the H inspection has informed that no such permission has been

p. 623 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.] given by the Department for carrying out mining operation A within the notified zones. As per the records made available by the State, Department of Archaeology, as early as 3rd March 2004, the Deputy Director, Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Karnataka, posted at Kamalapura had written to his Directorate office 8 in Mysore that during his spot inspection along with Shri T.M. Manjunathaiah, Technical Assistant, on 27th February 2004 witnessed the mining activity going 9n in the vicinity of the temple by using explosives (wagon blasting). He also informed that the felt tremors due to the explosion in the c temple while he was inspecting the temple. He also noticed cracks on the walls and roof due to the impact of the explosion. He reported that the lessee who was carrying out the mining was doing repairs in the form of plastering and cement coating to cover up the cracks on the ancient temple. He informed the temple priests about the damage being caused due to such unscientific methods of repair which had affected the architectural style of the ancient temple and asked them to stop at once such works. He has recorded in his letter that the temple is getting seriously damaged due to mining activity and the temple is wholly discoloured.

6. I further humbly state that this discoloration is obviously due to the accumulation of the deposit of the mineral dust which was seen by the visiting team on 29th November

2010. However, since the temple administration had done major repairs to the temple proper in the form of chemical cleaning and applying coat of warmish on pillars and walls, the discoloration was seen only in the superstructures over the sanctum and entrance mandapas as well as in patches inside the temple.

7. I further submit that a close inspection of various parts of the temple by Respondent No.9 along with Shri M.V. H

p. 624 Copy page pinpoint

A Visveswara, Deputy Superintending Archaeologist cum Site Manager, World Heritage Site, Hampi revealed that the temple has suffered:

1. Settlement in its foundation in the Navaranga and 8 Maha Ranga Mamlapa portions;

2. A few pillars have gone out of plumb-Plate Vl(a);

3. Concussion fractures in the capital portion of the pillar in Maha Ranga Mandapa Plate VI (b); c

4. Extended arms of the capital and beams have broken at some places Plate VII (a) and (b);

5. Widening of joints on the wall portions both horizontal and vertical: D

6. Discoloration of the stucco of the superstructure over the entrance mandapas and sanctum Plate VIII and IX;

7. Development of cracks over the roof and the E longitudinal as well as peripheral ridge, especially near the joints Plate X (a) and (b);

8. Dampness due to seepage of water capillary action and due to growth of vegetation; · F

9. Development of cracks over the roof and the longitudinal as well as peripheral ridge, especially near the joints;

10. Dampness due to seepage of water capillary action G and due to growth of vegetation.

8. I respectfully submit that again in the month of June 2007 on 1\)th a joint inspection by Tahsildar, Hospet, Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, Government of Karnataka; H Deputy Director, State Archaeology, Government of

p. 625 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.] · · Karnataka; Revenue Inspector, Hospet; Taluk Surveyor A inspected the temple in Survey Number 198 and mining activities in Survey Number 115 ns per the instructions of the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary, was carried out and they have confirmed and recorded in their joint inspection report that (i) the cracks were developed in the temple due B to mining; (ii) mining activities was carried out in the near proximity of the temple and the (iii) if temple is not conserved and mining activities are not stopped, the temple may get affected severely.

9. I further humbly submit that Shri Subramanian, Senior C Geologist, Geological Survey of India, Bangalore, who visited the site along with Respondent No.9, who viewed the site from geological point of view, has opined that because of intense mining activity fine dust particles are deposited on south, south east and north gopuras of the 0 temple and the mining activity has led for the dumping of the mine waste on the eastern and north eastern part of the temple which has led for artificial drainage on the eastern boundary of the temple. One of the benches of the mine on the north eastern part of the nala (drainage) has E led for flooding and soil erosion in and around the temple. As the temple is in lower elevation, the mine is in the upper elevation, road cutting on the upper elevation has lead for debris movement on the southern part of the temple. F

10. I further humbly submit that the Principal Design Engineer, Shri Mohan Kumar, BE (Civil); ME (structure), MIE, CH. Eng who was accompanying the team has opined from the point of view of structural engineering, that the visible distress observed in stone members of structure G is essentially due to one or the combination of following factors namely Prolonged age effect: Disturbance caused to the structure due to nearby mining activities; Inadequate/ Ineffective maintenance over a period of time. H

p. 626 Copy page pinpoint

I. 11. I further humbly submit that since the mining has been stopped for quite some time, the actual impact of the blasting/mining on the temple, intensity of the explosion, tremor and vibration as also the precise dust accumulation by using appropriate scientific instruments could not be B ascertained. However, even in the absence of above data, the onsite condition clearly brings out the following.

(a) The present condition of the temple which was constructed in around 1500 AD, using massive granite c blocks, in trabeate system, is attributed to several factors which are as under;

(b) Aging and lack of periodic maintenance by the concerned department;

D (c) Constructional methodology of trabeate system which is having inheritant weakness of yielding to tremors and shocks

(d) As repeatedly pointed out by the Deputy Director of E State Archaeology Department, Government of Karnataka and other local authorities and also as observed by the Respondent ahd other officials, mining activities using explosives in the close proximity of the protected temple has also contributed to a extent for it& present detracted condition." F

43Copy pinpoint43. On 26.4.2011, the Court appointed a Committee of Experts with a direction that it shall inspect the site of the temple, the area where mining activities were being carried out and submit its report. The relevant portions of that order are extracted below:

"For the purpose of undertaking a comprehensive exercise for evaluation of the damage, if any, caused on Jambunatheswara temple due to mining activities undertaken before passing of stay orders by this Court on

p. 627 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.] 09.07.2010 and 18.02.2011, the Committee. comprising A the following is constituted: 1 -The Director, Directorate of Archaeology & Museums, Government of Karnataka, Karnataka Exhibition Authority Complex, Convenor B Mysore570 010. 2 The Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Bangalore Circle, 5th Floor, 'F' Wing, Kendriya Sadan, Koramangala, c Bangalore 560 034. (Along with the Member team of experts from ASI) 3 Geological Survey of India, State Unit of Karnataka & Goa, Vasudha Bhavan, Kumaraswamy Layout, D Member Bangalore 560 078.

4 Shri A.B.Morappanavar, IFS, Dept. of Ecology & Environment, Regional Director and Deputy Conservator of E Forest, #01, Charanti Matt Building, Shivalaya Road, Sadashivanagar, Member Belgaum 590001.' 5 Deputy Director, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of F Karnataka, College Road, Hospet 583 201 (Dist.Bellary) Member 6 Prof.C.S.Vadudevan, Asst. Professor, Department of Ancient History & Archaeology, Kannada G University, Hampi{Vidyaranya) -583 276 (Hospet Taluk, Bellary Dist.) Member 7 Sri Pankaj Modi, Conservation Architect, Indian National Trust for Art & Cultural Heritage, Karnataka H

p. 628 Copy page pinpoint

A Chapter, 166, Kattariguppe Water Tank Road, 4th Cross, 4th Block, 3rd Phase, Banashankari Ill stage, Bangalore 560 085. Member 8 The Deputy Director, Directorate of B Archaeology & Museums, Government of Karnataka, Kamalapuram 583221. (Hospet Member Taluk, Bellary Dist.) Secretary

c 9 A representative of Directorate General of Mines Safety (DGMS), Dhanbad, Jharkhand For mine safety 10 A representative of Indian Bureau of For Mining Mines, Nagpur, Maharashtra technology D The Committee shall inspect the site of the temple and the area where mining activities were being carried out, evaluate the impact of the mining activities on the temple from all possible angles keeping in view the relevant statutory provisions including the Environment Protection E Act, 1986, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981."

44Copy pinpoint44. The Court appointed Committee (for short, 'the Committee') held meetings on 6.6.2011 at Hospet, on 8.7.2011 at Mysore and on 27.2.2011, 16.11.2011 and 26.12.2011 at F Bangalore. During one of these meetings, the Committee decided to avail of the services of Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR), Dhanbad, Jharkhand for DETERMINATION OF SAFE BLASTING PARAMETERS TO AVOID DAMAGE TO THE TEMPLE and National Institute of Technology, Karnataka, Surathkal (hereinafter referred to as G 'NIT') for ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF BLASTING OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT IN IRON-ORE MINES ON JAMBUNATHESWARA TEMPLE AND SAFE LIMITING DISTANCE FOR BLASTING ACTIVITY IN MINES.

45Copy pinpoint45. CIMFR, Dhanbad carried out scientific investigations H from 9th to 13th November, 2011. During that period, eight

p. 629 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.] experimental trial blasts were conducted at four different mines A viz. Shankalapuram Iron Ore Mine of M/s. R.B. Seth Shreeram Narsingdas (RBSSN) (Respondent No.18), Aarpee Iron Ore Mine of Smt. R. Mallamma (respondent No.4), Jambunatheswara Iron Ore Mine of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited (respondent No.15) and Kariganaur Iron Ore Mine of 8 M/s. KMMI. Blast-induced ground vibrations and air overpressure/noise generated during the experimental blasts were monitored using five seismographs. Two seismographs were placed near the Jambunatheswara Temple whereas the remaining three seismographs were placed near the blasting C sites. In two rounds of trial blasts conducted nearest to the temple (i.e. in Aarpee Iron Ore Mine of Smt. R. Mallamma), a Sony-make Handycam video camera was used to observe any occurrence of fly rock from the blasts.

46Copy pinpoint46. After conducting experimental trial blasts, CIMFR, D Dhanbad sent a detailed report to the Committee along with photographs. The Executive Summary of that report reads as under:

"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E This report relates to the scientific investigations carried out by the Blasting Department, Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR), Dhanbad for the safety of the Jambunatheswara Temple, situated in Hospet, karnataka from blasting impacts produced by the surrounding mines during operation. The objective of the scientific study was to assess the impact of opencast blasting on the Jambunatheswara Temple and determination of a safe radial distance from the temple up to which all blasting operations should be banned and the area in which controlled blasting operations can be permir.ed along with details of safe blast design parameters. The field investigation was carried out during 9th - 13th November, /

2011. During the field investigation, eight experimental trial blasts were conducted at different mines situated nearby H

p. 630 Copy page pinpoint

A the temple. Ground vibrations and air overpressure/noise generated during the experimental blasts were monitored at various locations using five seismographs. The results of the study, conclusions and recommendations made in the report are summarized below. B

1. Eight trial blasts were conducted during the period of the field investigation. Two blasts were conducted at Shankalapuram Iron Ore Mine of Mis R. B. Seth Shreeram Narsingdas (RBSSN), three blasts at Aarpee Iron Ore Mine of Smt. R. Mallamma, two blasts at c Jambunatheswara Iron Ore Mine of Mis Mysore Mineral Limited (MML) and another one blast at Karinaganur Iron Ore Mine of M/s KMMI.

2. All the trial blasts were conducted beyond 200 m D distance from the Jambunatheswara Temple. The distances of the blasting locations from the temple varied between 290 and 1920.

3. The trial blasts were conducted as per the blast design E parameters normally practiced in each mine. The total number of holes in the blasting rounds varied from 6 to 10. Depth of holes varied betwin 7.0 and 10.0 m and blasthole diameter in all tl•e blasts was 115 mm. The total explosive charge varied between 106.20 and 407.50 kg. The F maximum explosive charge per delay varied from 17.67 kg to 40.75 kg. Shock tube (Nonel) initiation system was used for both in-hole and surface hole-to-hole initiation in all the blasts.

4. Five seismographs were used for monitoring of blast- G induced ground vibrations and air overpressures. In all the eight trial blasts conducted, two seismographs were always fixed at the Jambunatheswara Temple. The rest of the three seismographs were placed nearer to the blasting locations, directed towards the temple site. Distances of H

p. 631 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.] the vibration monitoring stations from the blasting locations varied between 290 and 1920.

5. In total, twenty-two ground vibration data were recorded from the eight experimental trial blasts conducted at the four different mines. The recorded magnitude of ground vibration data varied betwin 0.325 and 6.68 mm/s. The maximum magnitude of ground vibration recorded was 6.68 mm/s at a distance of 200 m from the blasting source .

. 6. The magnitude of ground vibration data recorded at the C Jambunatheswara Temple varied between 0.325 and 1.13 mm/s. The highest magnitude of ground vibration data recorded from all the experimental trial blasts at the temple site was 1.13 mm/s at a distance of 290 m from the blast site. It was recqrded near the Eastern Gate of the temple. The trial blast was conducted at the 2nd Bench (Nishant D PitJ.'Aarpee Iron Ore Mine of Smt. R. Mallama (3rd Trial Blast). The total quantity of explosives detonated in the blasting round was 205.02 kg whereas the maximum explosives charge per delay was 34.17 kg. E

7. When the trial blasts were conducted beyond 845 m from the Jambunatheswara Temple, no vibration data was recorded by the seismographs which were fixed near the temple. The triggering levels of the instruments were set at sensitive mode viz. 0.30 mm/s. F

8. The Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis of vibration data revealed that the dominant frequency of vibration waves varied between 7.5 and 31.8 Hz. In most of the cases, the frequencies were higher than 8 Hz. Only in a G very few cases the dominant frequencies were found to be less than 8 Hz.

9. The safe level of peak particle velocity (PPV) for the Jambunatheswara Temple was taken as 2.0 mm/s as per H

p. 632 Copy page pinpoint

A the DGMS Standard (Technical Circular Number 7 of 1997). This value has been taken into account, considering the importance and structural sensitivity of the temple.

10. The recorded magnitudes of ground vibration waves B measured inside the Jambunatheswara Temple premises, from all the eight experimental trial blasts conducted during 1Oth - 13th November, 2011, are well within the safe limits.

11. The levels of air overpressure recorded from the c different trial blasts varied between 97.5 and 117.8 dB (L). When the trial blasts were conducted beyond 845 m distance from the temple, no blasting sound could be heard or noticed physically. The levels of air pressure/noise produced due to blasting were well within the safe limits. D

12. No flyrock were observed in any of the eight experimental trial blasts conducted during the field investigation.

13. On the basis of the data recorded as well as observations made during the experimental trials, it may be said, technically and scientifically, that blasting may be carried out beyond 200 m distance from the Jambunatheswara Temple without causing any structural damages, provided that controlled blasting method is strictly adhered to (Tables 3 & 4).

14. Based on the field observations, ground vibration and air overpressure data recorded as well as their subsequent analysis, the following zones are classified for conducting blasting operations surrounding the Jambunatheswara Temple.

200 - 300 m from the Jambunatheswara Temple

300 - 500 m from the Jambunatheswara Temple H

p. 633 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.] Beyond 500 m distance from the Jambunatheswara A Temple

15. Within the distance of 200 - 300 m from the temple, controlled blasting with 6m blasthole depth and 115 mm blasthole diameter is recommended. Within300 - 500 m, B blasthole depth of 6 - 8 m and 115 mm diameter is recommended. Beyond 500 m distance from the temple, the maximum recommended blasthole depth is 10 m for 115 drill hole diameter.

16. The recommended blast design par~meters, controlled C measures for ground vibration, flyrock, noise/air overpressure for the safety of the Jambunatheswara Temple are prescribed in Sections 7 & 8. The recommendations should be followed strictly, in letter and spi~. D

17. In the present condition, the altitudes{Reduced Levell RL) of the working benches of the different iron ore mines located near the Jambunatheswara Temple are in a higher level than the temple. Most of the mines are also having E free faces of the working benches facing towards the temple. However, when the altitudes of these mines become on the same level or lower than the temple in future, it is recommended to reassess the impact of blast- induced ground vibration on the temple." F

47Copy pinpoint47. NIT undertook scientific investigation to assess the impact of blasting operations carried out in surrounding iron ore mines on the stability of Jambunatheswara temple. The objectives of the study undertaken by NIT are enumerated G hereunder:

(a) To study the blasting operations carried out in iron ore mines in the surroundings of the Jambunatheswara Temple. H

p. 634 Copy page pinpoint

A (b) To monitor blast vibrations.

(c) To establish the ground vibrations propagation equation.

(d) To determine the Safe Radial Distance from the B Temple up to which blasting activity may be permitted.

(e) To specify the blast design parameters and pattern to be followed, with details like, c Maximum explosive charge per hole

Type of initiation and the detonators to be used

Maximum number of holes per round D Maximum explosive charge per delay, to ensure PPV to be below 2mm/s for the Historical Temple as per the DGMS Technical Circular-7 of 1997.

Type of muffling to control fly rock E Methods of limiting the air blast (noise)

Any other measures.

48Copy pinpoint48. The investigation conducted by NIT covered Aarpee F Iron Ore Mines, Shankalapuram Iron Ore Mine of Mis. RBSSN, Jambunatheswara Iron Ore Mine of M/s. Mysore Mineral Limited and Kariganur Iron Ore Mine. In all 13 blasts were conducted in these mines in the presence of their representatives and these blasts were monitored at least at two G different locations by using blast vibration monitors, MINI MATE DS-077 and MINIMATE PLUS. On the basis of these investigations, NIT suggested that mining activity with drilling and blasting could be permitted up to a distance of 300 meters from Jambunatheswara temple with a cap on usage of H

p. 635 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.] maximum explosive charge delay of 44 kg. Dr. V. R. Sastry, A Professor of Mining Engineering, NIT submitted a detailed report to the Committee along with a number of photographs. The conclusions and recommendations contained in that report are reproduced below: B "CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

Based on the investigations carried out on blasting operations in iron ore mines around Sri Jambunatheswara C Temple, the following conclusions are drawn:

Studies were carried out in four iron ore mines, namely Smt. R. Mallamma, ARPEE Iron Ore Mines. Sankalapuram Iron Ore Mine - RBSSN, Jambunatha Halli Iron Mine - D Mysore Minerals Ltd., and Kariganur Iron Ore Mine - KMMI.

In total, 13 blasts were carried out in four mines.

Blasts were conducted in different benches and locations, representing different strata conditions. E

Diameter of blastholes used in all the blasts was 11 Omm.

Depth of the blastholes was varying from 6m to 1Om.

Number of Blastholes varied from 6 to 14. F Explosive charge per hole varied from 21. 75kg to 40.56kg. Total explosive charge per blast varied from 208.2kg to 570.5kg.

Shock tube system of initiation was used for achieving G down the hole initiation and also the surface delays.

Hole to Hole initiation was provided in all the blasts.

Sri Jambunatheswara Temple is an ancient Temple and, H

p. 636 Copy page pinpoint

A therefore, a Peak Particle Velocity of 2mm/s was considered as the Threshold value, to maintain stability of the Temple.

Ground vibrations and noise levels from each blast were B monitored using five (5) units of Blast Vibration Monitors, MNIMATE-007 and MINIMATE PLUS of lnstantel, Canada, at six (6) different locations. ' Three monitors were used to record blast vibrations at East entrance. North entrance, and West side of Sri c Jambunatheswara Temple.

The recordings indicated ground vibrations of less than 2mm/s Peak Particle Velocity near the Temple.

D There was no sign of any fly rock (occurring from any of the 13 blasts) at the Temple.

Ground Vibrations Propagation Equation was established (combined for all mines) for the site as V = 598.2(0/ VW)151 E Based an the investigations carried out it could be concluded that a safe distance of 300m be maintained from Sri Jambunatheswara Temple for carrying out blasting operations. F Maximum explosive charges per delay to be used for conducting the blasts at various distances from the Temple are provided in Table-9.

Individual blasthole to blasthole delay system, as practiced. G presently, should be continued to maintain safety of the Temple.

Recommendations

H Proper blast design results 'in lower ground vibrations.

p. 637 Copy page pinpoint

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.] The depth of blastholes may be maintained as S-12m. A Shorter benches of less than Sm result in higher ground vibration levels, as stiffness of bench increases.

Each blast should be conducted with a clear free face, to avoid confinement of blasts. B

It is recommended to continue the bottom hole initiation as practiced.

Blast layouts should be planned in such a way that the progress of initiation in the blast round is away (opposite) C from the Temple structure.

It is recommended to use a maximum of eight (S) blastholes per round, when the blast site is 300m away from the Temple. o It is advisable to continue the system of muffling by covering all the blastholes in the blast round with 25kg sand bags, to minimize the fly rock problem.

It is advisable to implement smaller, meticulously planned and safer blasts, rather than bigger blasts without having much control on the fragmentation process, leading to higher intensity of ground vibrations.

Care should be taken to avoid over confinement blastholes by applying sufficient delay time between blastholes in the blast round. It is advisable to provide a clear delay of Sms/ m between blastholes in the blast layout.

It is recommended to follow the following blast pattern at G 300m distance or more from the Temple:

Bench height : Sm

Depth of holes : S.5-9m H

p. 638 Copy page pinpoint

A Burden : 2.5 -3.5m

Spacing : 3m-4.5m

Pattern of holes Rectangular B Initiation :Straight line patternN- pattern

No. of rows :2

No. of holes :8 c Width of blast area ·: With single row-2.5-3.Sm

Length of blast area : 24 - 36m

In-Hole initiation : Shock Tube System D Delay system : Shock Tube system

Charge per hole : 44kg (Maximum)

Max. charge I delay : 44kg E Initiation Pattern: : Straight line pattern

V-pattern

Diagonal pattern (in case free end F available)

The layouts of the blasts conducted during the investigations may be continued, with hole to hole individual delays, as shown in Fig. 29."

49Copy pinpoint49. The Committee analysed the aforesaid reports, considered the recommendations made therein and submitted its report to this Court in two volumes. Parts IV and V of the main report, which contain discussions and recommendations read as under: H

p. 639 Copy page pinpoint