2020 Supreme(Pat) 159
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Sanjay Karol, S. Kumar, JJ.
Indian National Trust For Art And Cultural Heritage (intach) Patna Chapter - Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19822 of 2019, 19847 of 2019
Decided On : 01-09-2020
Sanket, Advocate, Lalit Kishore, Advocate, Prabhat Kumar Verma, Advocate, Yogendra Prasad Sinha, Advocate
The duty to preserve and protect ancient and historical monuments and the need for development to be coexistent with the natural environment.
Headnote:
Ancient Monument - Protection of Dutch Era Collectorate - Bihar Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites Remains and Art Treasures Act, 1976; Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 - The court discussed the historical significance of the Dutch era Collectorate and the provisions of the Bihar Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites Remains and Art Treasures Act, 1976 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The court emphasized the duty to preserve and protect ancient and historical monuments and the need for development to be coexistent with the natural environment. The court also highlighted the importance of expert opinions and the principle of sustainable development in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought protection of a structure built by the Dutch in the 18th Century, claiming it as an ancient monument of historical importance. The government planned to demolish the structure for a modern complex as part of the 'Smart City' project.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the government's actions did not violate the Bihar Urban Planning and Development Act, 2012 and were not arbitrary, perverse, or capricious. It emphasized the duty to value and preserve the rich heritage of the composite culture and the need for development to be coexistent with the natural environment.
Issues: Whether the government's actions violated the Bihar Urban Planning and Development Act, 2012 and whether the development of the site as a Collectorate after demolition can be considered arbitrary, perverse, or capricious.
Ratio Decidendi: The duty to preserve and protect ancient and historical monuments, the need for development to be coexistent with the natural environment, and the importance of expert opinions and sustainable development influenced the court's decision.
Final Decision: The court vacated the interim order and left it open for the government to take necessary consequential action, finding no reason sufficient enough to accept the petitioner's prayers.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Karol, C.J. - The petitioner has approached this Court seeking protection of a structure built by the Dutch in the 18th Century. According to the petitioner, the structure is an ancient monument having great historical importance and significance. As such, it must be protected and preserved.
2. It is not in dispute that the structure, subjectmatter of the present petition, is commonly termed as "Collectorate". In the 18th Century the building was built and used for commercial use and purpose, perhaps to propagate the trade of opium. Post-independence, the structure was put to use by the district administration for housing various government offices. As evident from the inspection report dated 3rd May, 2016, prepared by experts headed by the Director, Archaeology, Bihar, for the period pre-independence the building was used for commercial purposes. The Dutch used the same for storage of Shora (Saltpeter) and Opium and that over time, the significant portion of the structure(s) stood damaged and are in a dilapidated condition. Significantly, in the year 1972, a survey was carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India whereby specific sites and monuments, after inspection, were declared to be Protected Monuments/Sites under the provisions of the Bihar Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites Remains and Art Treasures Act, 1976. Additionally, 72 sites/monuments were declared as protected sites/monuments under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. At no point in time, the building in question, commonly termed as "Collectoriate" was notified to be a Protected Site/Monument under any one of the statutes.
3. What was the genesis or necessity of inspection and submission of the report of experts dated 3rd May 2016 is not clear from the record? However, fact remains that even in this report, there is no whisper, of the building found suitable or fit to be declared as a Monument as per law. In fact, a specific reference in the report indicates that the building used for commercial purpose has got the indirect historical connection and structural features (Dutch) with "The Elements of Aesthetic Sense" being "relatively insignificant".
4. However, keeping in view the historic value of the building, it was recommend to build the replica of the exterior pillars of the building near the fa ade structure so that its historical reference maintained even after non existence of the original structure. Building Construction Department shall exhibit the architectural features and history of existing Collectorate Campus Building in a courteous way in new Collectorate Building.
5. What steps did the petitioner take pursuant to the preparation of the said report is not clear, save and except for requesting the Government to restore the property?
6. Be that as it may, it has come on record that the Government of Bihar took a conscious decision, perhaps, with the support of the Central Government, to declare Patna, capital of Bihar, as a "Smart City". Under the said project, a decision was taken to build a modern structure in Patna, for housing different departments of the Government. The endeavour is to make the complex as a one-stop place, increasing efficiency in administration, apart from bringing convenience to the genuine public. For the construction of a modern Collectorate building having all modern amenities and facilities, the existing structure requires demolished and as per the project report, a total sum of approximately Rs. One hundred forty crores to be spent for which tenders are also invited. This, was way back in the year 2018/early 2019. It was only when the issue of finalization of construction of a modern complex was expedited that the petitioner, for the first time, highlighting importance and significance of the structure approached the Court by filing the instant petition (CWJC No. 19822 of 2019) on 23rd September, 2019, inter alia, praying for the following r