The Temple in the Tank Bed
You are the Assistant Commissioner of a sub-division in southern Karnataka. A 12th-century Hoysala-period temple, notified as a protected monument under the state archaeology law, stands on the dry bed of a 300-year-old irrigation tank. The tank bund was breached in the last monsoon, and 480 farming families want it repaired and the full-tank level raised by 1.2 metres to bring 640 additional acres under sugarcane. The PWD estimate records that the temple's lower plinth - already crusted with salt efflorescence and cracked in two places - would lie under 40 cm of water for about six weeks each year. The Archaeology Department has flagged the proposal in correspondence but has issued no formal objection. A local seer has announced a 10,000-person satyagraha. A builder has offered to 'relocate' the loose idols to a private trust's new temple nearby. Your predecessor cleared the file in a single-page note. The Chief Minister visits in six weeks.
1. Identify the legal obligations and the ethical issues in this file, and explain why 'the file was cleared in one page' is itself a finding you must address.
Read the worked answer
Legal anchors.
- The monument is notified under the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960 (mirroring the central AMASR Act, 1958). Any act of damage, alteration or use of the protected area needs prior permission of the Director of Archaeology. Submergence is damage - water is not a softer instrument than a bulldozer.
- The tank is a minor irrigation work under the Karnataka Irrigation Act, 1965; raising the full-tank level affects third-party property and needs technical sanction plus a proper assessment of affected interests, not just an engineering estimate.
- Any desilting or bund contract attracts the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999.
Ethical issues.
- Intergenerational equity: a 12th-century structure is a non-renewable public good; 640 acres of sugarcane is a renewable annual benefit. The two cannot be traded at face value.
- Distributional justice: the farmers' claim is legitimate and must not be dismissed as pressure.
- Conflict of interest: the builder's offer converts a public heritage asset into private property and may be tied to a land interest.
- Administrative ethics: one page for a decision that extinguishes an irreplaceable asset is a failure of due diligence, not evidence of efficiency.
Why the one-page note matters. As successor you are not bound by it, but you are bound to record why you depart from it. A thin note is a finding because it shows no alternatives were assessed, no statutory opinion was obtained, and no affected-party record exists - all of which a court, the CM's office or a CAG audit will read as non-application of mind. The first task, therefore, is not to decide but to rebuild the record.
2. State the decision you would take on the full-tank-level raise, and set out the sequence of actions over the six weeks.
Read the worked answer
Decision: do not permit the 1.2 m raise as proposed - but do not simply refuse. Refusal alone leaves 480 families with a breached bund and a legitimate grievance that will be read as heritage versus farmers. The correct decision is a reasoned deferral with an alternatives assessment.
Sequence.
Week 1. Write to the Director of Archaeology for a formal technical opinion with a 15-day deadline; commission an independent engineer (not PWD, not the predecessor's consultant) to prepare an options matrix; conduct a joint site inspection with the PWD, Archaeology and two farmer representatives.
Weeks 2-3. Cost four options: (A) full 1.2 m raise; (B) bund repair and desilting only to the original full-tank level, which restores part of the ayacut with no submergence; (C) partial raise with a cofferdam and protection wall around the plinth; (D) lift irrigation or a new storage structure upstream to serve the same 640 acres. Include conservation cost, statutory permission risk and the cost of losing the monument permanently.
Weeks 3-4. Public consultation with farmers, the seer's nominees and the Archaeology Department, with the matrix on the table. Publish it - a decision taken in a closed room will be litigated in the street.
Week 4-5. Sanction the bund repair immediately (it disturbs no level). Adopt option B plus a time-bound feasibility study of D; hold C as a conditional pilot only if the Archaeology Department certifies that a protection wall will not damage the plinth.
Week 5-6. Write a full reasoned note - chronology, statute, alternatives, reasons - and brief the CM with a one-page decision sheet carrying options, cost and legal risk. The visit is a reason to record everything, not a reason to hurry.
3. How do you respond to the builder's offer and to the seer's protest, and on what principle do you distinguish the two?
Read the worked answer
Builder's offer - refuse in writing, and record the refusal.
- The idols are part of the notified monument. 'Loose' means not fixed to the structure, not unclaimed property.
- Their transfer would require the Archaeology Department's permission and a transparent, published process; a private trust acquiring them creates a permanent public loss and a private windfall.
- Ask the Directorate whether the builder or the trust holds any land interest adjoining the tank. The offer may not be philanthropy.
- Do not accept any donation, sponsorship or 'help' from the same party while the file is open.
Seer's protest - treat it as a stakeholder, not a law-and-order problem.
- Meet, hear, and separate two things: the demand to be heard (legitimate) and the demand to change the facts (not negotiable by protest size).
- Offer a joint inspection with the seer's nominee, an independent expert's report, and a published decision date. Ask for two nominees to the consultation and for the satyagraha to remain peaceful.
- Do not promise an outcome; promise a process with dates.
The principle. The state can negotiate the route, the timeline and the mode of participation. It cannot negotiate the factual basis of a technical decision - whether the plinth will be submerged is not a matter of consensus. Conceding a fact to buy peace is the classic administrative failure: it converts a protest into a precedent.
A second principle applies to both: equal treatment. The same file, the same inspection, the same published matrix for the builder and the seer. Any asymmetry will be the story.