Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Young Men'S India Association vs E. Jayakumar . on 26 April, 2016
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice, R. Banumathi
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4457 OF 2016
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No. 18916 of 2012)
Young Men’s Indian Association …Appellant
Versus
E. Jaya Kumar & Ors. …Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4458 OF 2016
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No. 24110 of 2012)
Young Men’s Indian Association …Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. …Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
These appeals arise out of two different orders passed by the High Court of Madras one dated 24th January, 2012 in Writ Petition No. 21987 of 2008 and the other dated 10 th April, 2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 25689 of 2011.
Signature Not Verified The circumstances leading up to the filing of these appeals Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI Date: 2016.07.06 14:06:54 IST
Reason: may be summarized as under:
1 In Writ Petition No. 21987 of 2008, filed in public interest, the petitioner prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to take appropriate steps for conserving the Besant Memorial Building also known as Gokhale Hall situated at No.66, Armenian Street, Chennai-1. A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras disposed of the said petition in terms of its order dated 24 th January, 2012 observing that it was satisfied with the measures taken by the authorities for the protection of the building in question. The Court, while saying so, referred to a letter dated 31 st October, 2011 written by the Member Secretary, CMDA to the Honorary Secretary, Young Men’s Indian Association (YMIA) directing certain measures and steps to be taken for conservation of the building in question.
Writ Petition No. 25689 of 2011 was then filed by the YMIA, challenging the directions issued by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA), in terms of its letter dated 31 st October, 2011. The petitioner association’s case was that the building in question which is owned by it was in a dilapidated condition and required to be demolished and reconstructed in part. That request having been rejected by CMDA, the petitioner sought a direction from the High Court for permission to demolish and 2 reconstruct the structure. The petitioner’s case was that the respondents had earlier given permission to demolish the building in the year 2008 itself but taken a totally contrary view while issuing the impugned orders. The High Court has dismissed the said petition on the ground that the CMDA had come forward to preserve the building as a heritage building. The High Court has also referred to the report filed by INTACH on 11 th June, 2010 based on which the Division Bench of that Court had directed the Heritage Conservation Committee to inspect the building and submit a report. The CMDA had subsequently sent a letter dated 31st October, 2011 to the YMIA for preservation of the building, in paragraphs 4 and 5 whereof it was stated as under:
“4. There is no doubt on the part of CMDA about the heritage value of the building. As per DR (3), Annexure XXV, the heritage building has to be notified by the Government. CMDA is in the process of preparation of the list of heritage buildings to be notified within the Chennai Metropolitan Area. But as a Special Case, this Gokhale Hall building as per the direction of the High Court, Heritage Conservation Committee, had examined its heritage value and informed to the court its recommendations for restoration. It can be stated that the Gokhale Hall is in the draft list and it is one of the buildings listed as heritage building in the justice E. Padmanabhan’s Committee Report submitted to the High Court in W.P.No.7143/2006. Etc. 3
5. In the above circumstances, the request of the YMIA for demolition of the southern part of the building could not be complied with and permission is negative.” The High Court taking note of the above held that since the CMDA had come forward to preserve the building, which had a heritage value there was no question of demolishing the same.
Mr. R. Balasubramaniyan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously argued that the High Court had fallen in error in overlooking the fact that the building in question had not yet been notified as a heritage building either under the Central Act (The Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites & Remains Act, 1958 or under the Tamil Nadu Ancient and Historical Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1966). He drew our attention to a letter dated 18 th April, 2007 from the Superintending Archaeologists, Government of India, addressed to the Executive Engineer, Chennai Corporation and contended that according to the said communication the structure in question had not been declared as a protected monument under the Central Legislation. As regards the Notification of the building as a heritage building under the State law also no such notification had yet been 4 issued although the Heritage Conservation Committee appears to have opined that the building had some heritage value. While the said recommendation may be of some value, so long as the same does not culminate in the issue of a proper Notification by the competent authority, the building could not be treated as a heritage building. It was argued that the Government had, despite lapse of considerable time, taken no steps to finally determine the question whether or not the building is a heritage building. This Court could, therefore, direct the Government to do the needful within a reasonable period while keeping these proceedings pending in this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Tamil Nadu and CMDA, on the other hand, submit that while it is true that the building in question has not so far been declared as a heritage building either under the Central Legislation or under the State Act, there is enough material to suggest that the building has been evaluated by the Heritage Conservation Committee and has been found to be a heritage building. The CMDA had consequently taken some steps for having the building preserved against deterioration, damage or demolition. At any rate, the State 5 Government would, according to the learned counsel, have no difficulty in finally taking a view whether or not to notify the building as a heritage building and in case it is held that the building is a heritage building, in notifying the same in accordance with law. In any such event, the aggrieved party can seek appropriate redress, if so advised, in accordance with law.
In the light of what has been stated above, it is apparent that as on date there is no formal Notification declaring the building in question to be a heritage building. The matter appears to be still hanging fire with the State Government. Learned counsel for the State was, therefore, justified in seeking time for the State Government to take a final view in the matter. Having said that, we do not consider it necessary to keep these proceedings pending in this Court. In our view, it would suffice if we direct the State Government to take a final view in the matter based on the recommendations made by the Heritage Conservation Committee and the CMDA on the subject expeditiously but not later than four months from the date a copy of this order is received by it.
Needless to mention that declaration shall be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and after affording an 6 opportunity to the appellant to file its objections, if any. We make it clear that if the building is eventually notified as a heritage building, it shall be open to the appellant to challenge the said declaration in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. So also, in case the building is held not to be of any heritage value, the appellant shall be free to seek permission to develop the property under the prevalent municipal bye-laws and regulations etc. With the above observation, these appeals are disposed of. No costs.
………………………………….CJI (T.S. Thakur) ………………………………….J. (R. Banumathi) New Delhi;
Date: 26.04.2016
7
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 18916/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24/01/2012 in WP No. 21987/2008 passed by the High Court Of Madras) YOUNG MEN'S INDIA ASSOCIATION Petitioner(s) VERSUS E. JAYAKUMAR & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report)(for final disposal) WITH SLP(C) No. 24110/2012 Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 26/04/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. R.Balasubramanian,Sr.Adv.
Mr. B.Karuna Karan,Adv.
Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan,Adv. Mr. Govind Manoharan,Adv.
Ms. Shruti Iyer,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv.
Mr. Jayant Patel,Adv.
Mr. B. Balaji,Adv.8
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The Appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
No costs.
(SUMAN WADHWA) (VEENA KHERA)
AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER
Signed order is placed on the file.
9