Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Declaration of a building as heritage has a great impact on its owner. Under Section 425A he cannot change the use of the building. He has to "maintain, preserve and conserve it". This obligation is attached to each and every subsequent owner of the building. Therefore it is just not possible to sell or otherwise transfer the heritage building, easily. In September, 1998 this Expert Committee submitted its final report to the government. In the report, premises No. 22 Park Street was included in a list of Heritage Buildings, appended to it. Incidentally, our High Court was also included in that list. The reason why 22 Park Street was recommended to be declared as a heritage building is very shortly stated against serial no. 130 of the appendix to the report dealing with buildings according to their architecture. It is this: "part of the building extends over portico, arcuated, two floors". The recommendations that were made by the Expert Committee were to be sent to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for consideration, in view of the 1997 amendment. This was decided in a high level meeting held on 1st December, 1998. On 17th April, 2000 the Heritage Committee constituted under the amended provisions recommended 828 building to be heritage. On 5th May, 2000 the Mayor-in-Council accepted this recommendation. On 21st September, 2000 the recommendation of the Mayor-in-Council was approved in the Municipal Corporation meeting. On 3rd October, 2000 the heritage conservation committee recommended a further 520 buildings to be heritage. On 19th January, 2001 the Mayor-in-Council accepted the recommendation. On 20th February, 2001 the recommendation of the Mayor-in-Council was approved in the Municipal Corporation meeting.

As I have narrated hereinbefore, the very list of the Expert Committee in which the High Court was included also contained 22 Park Street. Apparently, if the Heritage Committee constituted under the amended Act did not declare High Court as a Heritage Building, then for the self- same reasons the declaration of 22 Park Street as a heritage building should also be declared invalid.

But the Division Bench has been very careful in saying that only the list of heritage buildings as on 25th February, 2009 was presented before the Court and that all the documents which were considered, if at all, by the Heritage Conservation Committee and Mayor-in-Council were not placed before it. The Court came to the conclusion that the High Court had not been properly declared as heritage building more as an adverse inference.

"425-O.When heritage building ceases to be heritage building----If the Corporation decides that any heritage building has ceased to be of public interest or has lost its importance for any reason whatsoever, it may, with the approval of the State Government, declare that such heritage building has ceased to be a heritage building for the purposes of this Act."

The wording of Section 425-O has to be carefully examined. It suggests that if in future, according to the Corporation a heritage building is shorn of public interest in it or loses its importance, it might declassify the building with the approval of the State Government. In my opinion, this Section does not deal with a case where a building has been declared as a heritage building on insufficient evidence or grounds. Chapter XIIIA which was inserted by the amending Act of 1997 seems to have granted finality to the decision of the Corporation declaring a building as a heritage property. Only when there is a change of circumstances in the future as mentioned in Section 425-O, the Corporation with the approval of the State Government can declassify the building. The two grounds are loss of public interest and loss of importance of the building. The statute has no provision for correction of an error in declaring a building as heritage, by the Corporation. Hence once a declaration is made by the Corporation, it is final and irreversible. Although the statute gives finality to the decision of the Corporation in declaring a building as heritage, it cannot, by application of the ordinary principles, escape the scrutiny of the Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

In this particular case, the building has been declared as heritage because of its architecture.

In my opinion, the title introducing the chapter as well as Section 425B should be looked into. First of all a building should be fit enough to be declared as a heritage building. If it is fit enough it is to be preserved and conserved. A building may be architecturally imposing and beautiful. But there may be numerous other buildings of the same architecture and equally beautiful. The same kind of building may have been built over several decades. In that case there would be nothing to preserve or conserve in the building because it is very common and likely to be built again. But if the construction of a building reflects an architectural technique, which is to some extent unique and confined to a particular era, then a historian has to think whether the building is to be preserved and conserved. It is not just the architectural beauty and uniqueness that should be taken into account. Whether the building is part of our heritage should be considered. When considering the heritage of a building, its historical importance is also relevant. Therefore, the Heritage Committee in my opinion has to make a very serious deliberation before declaring a building as a heritage building. More so because when a building is declared as heritage, the owner is deprived of many of his ordinary rights of dealing with the property. Now, if one examines the reason advanced by the committee for declaring the said building as heritage, one is bound to feel very disappointed. No details are given. The owner of the building and the public are entitled to know why the building is declared as heritage. It is very common for part of the building to "extend over portico". It is also very common for a building or a portico to be arcuated or curved. Why was 22, Park Street declared as a heritage building? What is the historical importance of this building? What is the architectural significance and originality of this building? All these reasons had to be given but had not been given. It appears as if the committee went on an inspection spree of buildings of the city and tabulated hundreds of them, often without any cogent reason at all.