1. Petitioner is claiming to be the owner of part of Bhandari Kothi built on plot No.1, MG Road, Indore. The Bhandari Kothi is said to have held by Holkar Government and according to the petitioner it was built before 1920. Later on it was purchased by M/s. Pannalal Nandalal Bhandari from the Holkar Government vide order No.88 dated 20.9.1937. Out of the total land, the father of the petitioner late Gajendra Singhji Bhandari purchased an area of 49906 sq.ft. from M/s. Nandalal Bhandari. After the death of late Gajendra Bhandari petitioner and other legal heirs became the owner of the said property. According to the petitioner Bhandari Kothi is now more than 90 years old and has acquired the status of heritage monument. By virtue of building of archaeological importance in the zoning plan of Indore Development Plan 2021, it was proposed to be preserved along with other building viz. Indra Bhavan. Petitioner and his family members have sentimental attachment with the building because of its historical and archaeological importance, therefore, they are interested in preserving the said building as heritage building. It has been alleged that respondents No.5 and 6 who are co-owner of the property are interested in demolition of the building for the purpose of construction of commercial complex which he came to know by way of advertisement published in the newspaper. Since respondents No.5 and 6 are in relation with the petitioner but their relation is not cordial, therefore, he has approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents No.1 to 4 to preserve the building of archaeological importance and not to sanction the plan of respondents No.5 and 6. Petitioner has prayed the relief that respondents No.1 to 4 be directed to observe and perform their statutory duty for implementation of draft Development Plan especially condition No.3.19.

2. Notices were issued in the writ petition and the respondents No.1,2 and 4 have filed the return in which it is stated that Bhandari Kothi is not included in the urban heritage and protected area and clause 3.19 provides that only after consultation and based upon the provisions of declaring property of archaeological importance, the premises can be included in the list of urban heritage or as protected area. The objections of the petitioner were considered by the competent authority and they decided vide order dated 27.8.2012 that declaration of private house/property as urban heritage is against the principle of natural justice. Vide letter dated 8.8.2014 the State Government has also clarified that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered to declare the Bhandari Kothi as monument of archaeological importance. It is also submitted that they have not taken any final decision on the application for development submitted by respondents No.5 and 6 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Respondent No.2 filed the return by which the return filed by respondent No.1 was adopted.

3. Respondents No.5 and 6 have filed a detailed return stating that Government of India especially Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi vide letters dated 23.11.2012, 4.4.2014, 17.8.2015 and 4.4.2015 has informed that Bhandari Kothi is not declared as urban heritage or the building having historical importance. According to the respondent ASI is the final authority in respect of declaration of heritage properties. The answering respondent has submitted that an application under section 29 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 has been made seeking sanction for the lay out plan. The Town and Country Planning Department has got confirmed vide letter dated 8.8.2014 from the Ministry of Environment that the claim for declaration of Bhandari Kothi as heritage building has been rejected and the application for sanction of the plan can be considered but because of the pendency of the petition the lay out plan has not been sanctioned by the Department, hence prayed for dismissal of the writ