The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a structure to be declared as a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, it must have historical, archaeological, or artistic value and be in existence for at least 100 years.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of Declaration to declare that the Tomb of David Yale and Joseph Hymners situated in the compound of Law College within the Madras High Court campus is not an ancient monument and consequently direct the respondents to remove/relocate the same from the existing place to any other place nearby within the time fixed by this Hon’ble Court.)

The tomb of David Yale and Joseph Hymners, the son and friend of Elihu Yale, the then Governor of East India Company, situated within the compound of the Law College within the campus of the High Court, is sought to be removed, by filing the present petition premising the case that the said tomb has no archaeological value and does not fall within the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, (for short ‘the Act’).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the High Court of Madras is one of the three chartered High Courts established in the three Presidency Towns of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta during the British colonial rule by virtue of the Letters Patent granted by Queen Victoria dated 26.6.1862. In view of the said power granted, the High Court exercises original jurisdiction over the City of Chennai as well as extraordinary original jurisdiction, civil and criminal appellate jurisdiction over the entire State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry. The Court was constructed and handed over on 12.7.1982. Within the sprawling High Court complex covering about 107 acres, there functions the City Civil Courts, Small Causes Courts, various Tribunals, etc. and the footfall daily within the court complex, comprising of litigants, court staff and other ministerial staff, advocate, Government Officials, Police, etc. congests the place, as the law college building also falls within the Court complex.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that inspite of the huge extent of land, there is no designated parking space for the advocates, staff, litigants, Government Officials, etc. and the disorganisation in parking is being addressed by the High Court administration, which has come out with a plan for conversion of the old law college building into court halls and also to construct a multi-level parking lot in the available open space.

4. It is the further averment of the petitioner that during the early 1700, when the city was under the rule of the East India Company, a Guava garden was situated next to the Fort, which was used as a burial ground and a Church was constructed there and over a period of time, the cemetery had extended upto the present law college. All the cemeteries were razed down to make the wall for Fort St. George after the attack by the French during the year 1758, barring two monuments, which were left standing, one of which is of Yale Obelisk, beneath which rest Ellhu Yale’s son, David and his close friend Joseph Hynmers. Alongside the said tomb is a circulat valut enclosed with railing which contains the remains of six members of the Powney family.

5. It is the further averment of the petitioner that as on date, only two cemeteries and obelisks alone survive and inspite of the ravages of time, the same are left undemolished. Elihu Yale, the then Governor of the East India Company was relieved of his post and prior to his relief, he had constructed the two cemeteries, which are still standing there. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the two Yale Obelisks and a circular value were declared the Tomb of David Yale and Joseph Hymners as one of ‘protected monuments’. The respondents have declared the aforesaid obelisks and tomb as ancient monuments on account of Section 2(j) of the Act merely on account of its existence for more than 100 years. The said obelisks does not call within the criteria of an ancient monument, which has historical, archaeological or artistic significance or interest. At best