The court affirmed that expert assessments regarding the safety and structural integrity of heritage buildings are paramount in decisions about their preservation or demolition.

JUDGMENT

1. This public interest litigation is filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondentsAuthorities to refrain from demolishing or reconstructing Devaraja Market building and Lansdowne Building of Mysore City contending inter alia;

1.1. That the Devaraj Market and Lansdowne Buildings were built during the time of erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore Sri. Chamarajendra Wodeyar(1881-1894). That these buildings were planned to compliment and complete the setting of Mysore Palace and if buildings are not preserved, the Mysore Palace and Fort would lose much of its setting. That the aforesaid buildings have been listed and graded as heritage buildings in the Master Plan 2031 of Mysore Nanjangud Local Planning Area, indicating that they have been and are the prime land mark of the region.

1.2. That these buildings are in a dilapidated condition requiring restoration work. That during the restoration work taken up in 2015, North gate of the Devaraja Market collapsed on 28/8/2016 resulting in stopping of the restoration work. That opinion of experts was sought who had opined that the said buildings could be rehabilitated and put back to its original function with a scientific approach to assessment and structural conservation.

1.3. That a Task Force that was constituted had visited the Devaraja Market on 1/9/2016, recommended demolition and reconstruction in the original Heritage design. However, subsequently, a Heritage Expert Committee that visited Devaraja Market on 22/2/2018 at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore and on inspection, expressed the feasibility of restoration of the structures. These two contradictory reports were placed before the Urban Planning and Reformation Standing Committee which recommended demolition and reconstruction of Devaraja Market. Consequent thereof, second respondent unanimously passed a resolution on 29/1/2019 to demolish and reconstruct Devaraja Market. That, by an order dtd. 5/4/2019 passed in W.P.No.60550/2016 and connected matters, this Court had directed the Special Heritage Committee contemplated under Master Plan- 2031 to have a relook as to whether whole or portions of the Devaraja Market would be restored, prior to taking steps for demolition of said building and decision in this regard was directed to be taken within three months.

1.4. That upon directions of the third respondent, the Karnataka Engineering Research Station appointed an experts team to conduct spot inspection and submit a report. The said team recommended demolition and reconstruction of the market building.

1.5. Second Experts Committee meeting was held on 21/11/2019, some of the committee members opined that it was not proper to take a decision regarding demolition/restoration of the market building without examining the capacity/fitness of the present building and as such, it was resolved that a final decision would be taken in this regard after necessary tests. Subsequently, Expert Engineers Team of the Karnataka Engineering Research Station conducted few tests in respect of fitness of the building, based on which, a letter dtd. 28/11/2019 was addressed opining that Devaraja Market Building had lost its strength and is not fit for public use.

1.6. The Experts Committee in its third meeting held on 2/12/2019, resolved to place the report of the Karnataka Engineering Research Station before the Special Heritage Committee to take a decision in the matter. That the Special Heritage Committee in its meeting held on 10/12/2019 unanimously decided to demolish the Devaraja Market Building and to take up reconstruction afresh as per rules in the existing heritage design and style and models restricting to the height of the existing building as per recommendation of the Experts Committee in the third meeting. Aggrieved by the above resolution, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition raising several grounds as enumerated in the petition seeking the relief as noted hereinabove.

2. Object