Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 1990
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.S. JANARTHANA
The Indian National Trust for Architectural & Cultural Heritage (INTACH), Chennai
Versus
The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai, Chennai & Others
Writ Petition No.25306 of 2006
Decided on : 29-04-2010
For the Petitioner:N.L. Rajah, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, I. Paranthaman, R2, V. Bharathidasan, Advocates, R3, A.L. Somayaji, Senior Counsel for V. Parthiban, Advocate.
Ratios:
a. All structures of historic, archaeological or artistic value are to be preserved by the State by issuing appropriate direction and regulation regarding their demolition and renovation.
b. All public and private buildings of historic, archaeological or artistic value shall not be altered, renovated or demolished without the prior permission of the Heritage Conservation Committee.
Headnote:(A)Constitution of India-Art.49, 300A-Tamil Nadu Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1966(25 of 1966)-Sec.2, 3-Constitutional right-Right to property-Fundamental duty-Directive principles-Heritage building-Preservation-Demolition-U.N.O. Convention-Respondent had been owning a century old building with artistic value and attempted to demolish the same to construct a new building-Petitioner challenged the proposal of the respondent and contended that it was a heritage building and by demolishing the same, the people loose their connection with the past and as per the UNO convention on heritage structures, the State was bound to preserve the same-Respondent contended that the building was structurally dilapidated, lost its economic value and as a business entity, it had to strive to improve the economic value of its investments-Respondent also relied on the report submitted by an expert engaged by it who stated that the building was in very bad shape and required to be demolished immediately-Held, the building was an ancient one having artistic value and every efforts had to be taken to preserve it-Series of directions were issued to protect the all such heritage buildings.
(B)Constitution of India-Art.49-Tamil Nadu Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1966(25 of 1966)-Sec.2, 3-Fundamental duty-Directive principles-Heritage building-Preservation-Demolition-Renovation-U.N.O. Convention-All structures of historic, archaeological or artistic value are to be preserved by the State by issuing appropriate direction and regulation regarding their demolition and renovation.
The Government shall issue rules to prevent persons from undertaking any repair even under the name of renovation of heritage buildings without seeking the necessary approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee whenever an ancient monument, whether it is a structure or erection of historic, archaeological or artistic value as described in the Tamil Nadu (25 of 1966). The CMDA must take the recommendation of the Committee for conserving the heritage buildings in the Chennai Metropolitan Area. The Government shall also enact rules so that such heritage buildings, wherever in the State, shall not be demolished except after obtaining the conditions similar to the ones provided for under the Development Control Rules.
Para 19
(C)Constitution of India-Art.49, 300A-Tamil Nadu Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1966(25 of 1966)-Sec.2, 3-Constitutional right-Right to property-Fundamental duty-Directive principles-Heritage building-Preservation-Demolition-Renovation-All public and private buildings of historic, archaeological or artistic value shall not be altered, renovated or demolished without the prior permission of the Heritage Conservation Committee.
We recommend to the Heritage Conservation Committee to issue notices in respect of all the buildings shown under Sl. Nos.1 to 467 in the report filed by the Committee headed by Justice E. Padmanabhan. The notice may be issued either separately for each building, or jointly, as in the case of buildings located within the same complex, indicating that that particular building is a heritage building. Priority may be given to those buildings which belong to private owners (individuals, Trusts, Corporations, etc.) so that there are no attempts on their part, to alter or renovate or demolish such ’listed buildings’ without consultation or prior permission of the Heritage Conservation Committee. Para 25
Prabha Sridevan, J.
This writ petition has been filed in public interest by the Indian National Trust for Architectural and Cultural Heritage (INTACH), a nation wide non-profit membership organisation set up in the year 1984 to protect and conserve Indias vast natural and cultural heritage. The present public interest litigation is for protection of the Bharath Insurance Building from being demolished without applying the provisions of Rule 22 of the Development Control Rules for Chennai Metropolitan Area, 2004.
.2. The Bharath Building, which is presently owned and rented out by the Life Insurance Corporation, is a landmark building recognised as a symbol of heritage conservations losing battle in the city and State. The history of the building may have to be set out at this juncture. The Bharat Buildings story goes back to 1868 when W.E. Smith, a pharmacist, arrived in Madras and, finding enough pharmacies and more in business in the city, proceeded to Ooty where he set up shop. The success of the Ooty pharmacy and other branches in the Blue Mountains made Smith decide not only to look at Madras again, but also set up a shop the city would not forget. On the site that became Bharat Insurances, he set up facilities that enabled W.E. Smiths to describe itself as "wholesale and manufacturing druggists... opticians, dealers in surgical instruments... and makers of aerated waters." When business grew, Smiths wanted not only more built-space but also a building in keeping with the image it had gained, as South Indias leading pharmacists. And so work began in 1894, on a building that was to be inaugurated in 1897 as Kardyl Building, headquarters of the firm that now described itself as "W.E. Smith & Co Ltd.". A triangular building with its peak flattened, Kardyl Building was designed by J.H. Stephens of the Madras P.W.D. and he let his vision of Indo-Saracenic architecture run riot in it. Domes, spires, 100-foot minarets, arches and verandahs blended the Mughal with the Ottoman, the Hindu and the European Classical in a fantasy that at its inauguration was described as "a palatial structure... ten times the size of what was occupied originally... one of the sights of the city... a far greater show than any other building on Mount Road." Within, its main feature was a magnificent 60-foot by 40 showroom. It also provided rooms for doctors and dentists on its first floor facing Mount Road, and for its European assistants facing General Patters Road. It even ran a café and a beer bar! And in its rear compound was its aerated water factory. When competition – especially from its great rival across the street, Spencers (more about anon) – increased, Smiths sold its business, building and all, to Spencers in 1925. Whereupon that growing giant incorporated Smiths pharma business into its own and rented out all the space, including the showroom. In 1934, Spencers finally found a buyer for the building, Bharat Insurance that had been established in Lahore in 1896 by Lala Harikishenlal. Bharat was taken over by the Dalmias in 1936 and when life insurance was nationalised in 1956, the numerous buildings the various life insurance companies owned in the country - including the Bharat Building - were taken over by LIC, which became one of the biggest property owners in the country. But before that happened, in the triangular garden in front of the old building was raised incongruously, in the art-deco styling of the time, a new, near contiguous block to the design of Prynne, Abbott and Davis, the leading Madras architects of the day. This was called the Bharat Insurance Building; the old Kardyl Building had never really changed its name but had begun to be referred to as the Bharat Building. –– vide "The Towers of Assurance", The Hindu dated 8. 2003.
.3. One of the finest examples of Indo-Saracenic architecture in the country, the Bharath Insurance building has been listed as a Grade-A Heritage Building as per INTACH listings based
