Step 1: Context of protection laws.
India has many centrally protected monuments. Construction activity around them can damage their heritage value, block visibility, or even destabilize their foundations. Hence, specific laws exist to regulate construction nearby.
Step 2: About the AMASR Act.
The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act was originally passed in 1958. Later, in 2010, it was amended to strengthen protection.
Step 3: Key provision of 2010 amendment.
The 2010 Amendment introduced strict zones:
- A 100 m prohibited area: No construction or repair work allowed.
- A further 200 m regulated area: Construction only with prior permission.
Step 4: Elimination of wrong options.
- (A) Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 → deals with control over export and dealing of antiquities. Not about construction zones.
- (C) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 → deals with urban land ceiling, nothing to do with monuments.
- (D) Environment Protection Act, 1986 → deals with pollution and environmental issues, not monuments.
Step 5: Conclusion.
Clearly, only AMASR Amendment Act, 2010 matches the requirement.
Final Answer: \[ \boxed{\text{The AMASR (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010}} \]
Identify the option that has the most appropriate sequence such that a coherent paragraph is formed:
Statement:
P. At once, without thinking much, people rushed towards the city in hordes with the sole aim of grabbing as much gold as they could.
Q. However, little did they realize about the impending hardships they would have to face on their way to the city: miles of mud, unfriendly forests, hungry beasts, and inimical local lords—all of which would reduce their chances of getting gold to almost zero.
R. All of them thought that easily they could lay their hands on gold and become wealthy overnight.
S. About a hundred years ago, the news that gold had been discovered in Kolar spread like wildfire and the whole State was in raptures.
Fish : Shoal :: Lion : _________
Select the correct option to complete the analogy.
P and Q play chess frequently against each other. Of these matches, P has won 80% of the matches, drawn 15% of the matches, and lost 5% of the matches.
If they play 3 more matches, what is the probability of P winning exactly 2 of these 3 matches?