Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

“Therefore, enquiry has revealed that the change in stand in relation to protection of the Gumti of Shaikh Ali was due to the objection raised by the Defence Colony Welfare Association. There is no specific provision under the AMASR Act, 1958 which states that if there is any addition/alteration in any monument, the same will not be considered for protection as a Centrally Protected monument by ASI. However, Shri Zulfeqar Ali, Director Monument, ASI and Sh. Praveen Singh, Superintending Archaeologist, Delhi Circle, ASI have stated that the purpose of the ASI is to protect the ancient monuments for posterity in their original form. In general, if a monument is altered by the way of modern additions, interventions and modifications then generally it is not considered for the Centrally Protected monument by ASI Department.” The Report goes on to a finding as to how and under what circumstances and under whose authority additions and alterations have been made in the Gumti. In this regard, Para 7 of the Report is reproduced below :-

9. On the basis of the outcome of preliminary enquiry conducted so far, it can be concluded that “Gumti of Shaikh Ali” belongs to L&DO Department, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs and was unauthorizedly occupied and altered by DCWA, without any permission from L&DO.

The names of the officers of L&DO responsible for the same has been sought from the Department and reply is awaited. Enquiry has revealed that the change in stand in relation to declaration of the Gumti of Shaikh Ali as a Centrally Protected monument by ASI Department was due to the objections raised by the Defence Colony Welfare Association including additions/alterations carried out by DCWA in the Gumti. Though there is no specific provision under the AMASR Act, 1958, it has been stated by ASI that only the ancient monuments in their original form are protected by ASI and if a monument is altered by the way of modern additions, interventions and modifications then it is not considered for protection by ASI as it has lost the archeological value.” Of course, the CBI is not an expert body on the archeological and historical work of a document, but they have done a excellent work in bringing before this Court the sequence of events, which have led to the neglect of the monument and, the total unauthorized occupation of a building of archeological importance. To what extent, the building can be restored and what is the damage which has already been caused to the building, can only be done by an expert. In order to ascertain this aspect, we appoint Ms Swapna Liddle, who is ex-convener of (INTACH) (Delhi Chapter of Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage) and has authored several books on contemporary and post medieval and modern history of Delhi. We request Ms Swapna Liddle to survey and inspect the building and ascertain the damage which has been caused and to what extent the building can be restored, and in what manner it can be done. We would appreciate if the report is filed within six weeks from today.