IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice M. SUNDAR, N.SATHISH KUMAR, J
Ministry of Culture, Rep. By its Secretary – Appellant
Versus
B.Manoharan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.SUNDAR, J.
This common judgment will govern captioned two Writ Appeals, two Civil Miscellaneous Petitions thereat, captioned main Writ Petition and the lone Writ Miscellaneous Petition thereat.
2.In captioned 'two Writ Appeals' ('W.As' for the sake of brevity) which are intra court appeals, 'order dated 27.06.2023 made in W.P.No.32163 of 2022 by a Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court' [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience] has been assailed. A Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court, vide the impugned order has allowed the writ petition filed by a member of the Bar (practicing Advocate of this Court) with a prayer to declare that the Tomb of David Yale and Joseph Hynmer in the compound of the Madras Law College (part of Madras High Court campus) is not an ancient monument and with a further prayer for consequential direction to official respondents to relocate the tomb within a time frame. Captioned 'W.A.No.2401 of 2023' shall be referred to as 'said appeal' and 'W.A.No.2570 of 2024' which has been filed assailing the same impugned order (by a person who is not a party to the W.P. before Hon'ble Single Judge) shall be referred to as 'third party appeal', both














The court ruled that the tomb in question does not qualify as an ancient monument under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive master plan for development.
The court ruled that ownership claims over land must be substantiated with documentary evidence, and material questions of fact should be resolved in civil suits rather than writ petitions.
The court's decision underscores the deference to expert opinions in matters concerning the preservation and demolition of heritage buildings, emphasizing the importance of safety considerations and ....
The court affirmed that expert assessments regarding the safety and structural integrity of heritage buildings are paramount in decisions about their preservation or demolition.
Court emphasizes the necessity of expert involvement and statutory compliance in decisions affecting heritage conservation.
The court affirmed that new constructions within prohibited areas near protected monuments violate statutory provisions, emphasizing the need for preservation of historical sites over individual cons....
The court affirmed the priority of public interest in preserving historical monuments over private construction rights, ruling unauthorized constructions after necessary prohibitions as invalid.
The court emphasized the necessity of protecting heritage structures from developmental impacts while allowing the petitioners to seek further legal remedies concerning any damage post-construction.
A court may grant leave to institute a suit without notice under Section 80(2) CPC if urgent relief is necessary, and the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for local investigation is valid and ....
Actions would be taken to verify that the existing structure is in accordance with the existing Development Permission and only thereafter, Building Usage Permission would be granted.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.