Back
2020 Supreme(Pat) 423
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANJAY KAROL, S. KUMAR, JJ.
Indian National Trust For Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar, Through the Chief Secretary & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19822 of 2019 with 19847 of 2019
Decided On : 01-09-2020
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanket, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Lalit Kishore, A.G., Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, AAG-3, Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, AAG-7.
Headnote:
Bihar Urban Planning and Development Act, 2012 – Section 77 – Bihar Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites Remains and Art Treasures Act, 1976 – Protection of a structure built by Dutch in 18th Century – Structure, subject matter of present petition, is commonly termed as Collectorate – In 18th Century building was built and used for commercial use and purpose, perhaps to propagate trade of opium – Post-independence, structure was put to use by district administration for housing various government offices – Archaeological Survey of India has not intervened in declaring monument as a historical one – Nor has newly constituted Commission found it to be so – Projects for development, which are in wider public interest, cannot be stalled endlessly, particularly, when action is bona fide and in public interest – Committee, vide its inspection report, after minutely examining record; the structure; the artefacts and other material, has clearly opined that building is in a totally dilapidated condition; beyond repair and has no historical importance or significance and that it needs to be demolished for re-development of Collectorate – No reason to differ with such a finding – Members of Committee have considered material in its entirety – Building housing Government offices in close vicinity, with time, would also be housed in new Collectorate building – Eventually, Patna as a whole would be developed as a Smart City – Action of Government cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary, illegal or whimsical – Equally, opinion of experts cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary, capricious or without any basis or foundation – Building has no significance, whatsoever, with art, culture or heritage or with that of any one of movements of struggle for freedom, leading to independence of India – Equally, no celebrated person is associated with same – Court should be slow to interfere with opinion expressed by experts, for it is ordinarily wise and safe to leave decision to experts, familiar with subject and problems – Interim order vacated. (Paras 20 to 22, 25, 28, 37 and 41)
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Karol, 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, subject-matter 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 façade 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 relief(s
