The court dismissed a writ petition filed by an architect seeking declaration and preservation of Pragati Maidan structures as national heritage. The court held that the undisputed decision of the Heritage Conservation Committee excluding buildings under 60 years old precluded any legal right to mandamus claiming preservation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 20.04.2017
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Ms. Roma Bhagat, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Vidur Mohan and Mr. Kartik Rai, Advocates for respondent No.1.
Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saket Sikri, Ms. Adwaita Sharma and Mr. Archit Upadhyay, Advocates for ITPO. Mr. Anil Grover with Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Ms. Kanika Singh and Mr. Mishal Vij, Advocates for NDMC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
O R D E R % 20.04.2017
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 11841/2017 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Page 1 of 18
WP(C) 2731/2017
WP(C) 2731/2017 & CM No.11840/2017 (directions)
Page 2 of 18
WP(C) 2731/2017
the year 1969 and was completed in 1972.
Page 3 of 18
WP(C) 2731/2017
obligation of the respondents to preserve the said building.
Page 4 of 18
WP(C) 2731/2017
Conservation Committee has not been challenged by the petitioner and in absence of any challenge to the same, the petitioner cannot seek preservation of the buildings which the Heritage Conservation Committee has opined do not qualify to be considered as heritage.
Page 5 of 18
WP(C) 2731/2017
preserve the said building.
“B. Other matters:
Item No.1. Recommendations of the Sub-Committee constituted on: Inclusion of Modern Post Independence (1947) iconic Buildings in the Heritage List-Criteria thereof.
In the 49th meeting of HCC held on 2nd May 2016, it was decided to constitute a sub-committee with the mandate to prepare criteria for the inclusion of modern iconic post-independence buildings in the heritage list. The sub-committee has submitted its report on 13th August 2016. This report was discussed in HCC‟s 53rd meeting held on 2nd February 2017.
Page 6 of 18
WP(C) 2731/2017
2. It was observed that the sub-committee has gone beyond its mandate of preparing criteria for inclusion of modern buildings in the heritage list. The sub-committee has entertained and analyzed the list of 62 buildings received from INTACH and has made recommendations regarding whether they should be considered heritage building along with their grading. Para 1.5 of AnnexureII, referred to in bye-law 7.26 of the United Building Bye Laws for Delhi, 2016 (UBBL) clearly stipulates that the responsibility of preparation of list of heritage sites is that of the local bodies based on the advice of HCC. Further, this para mentions that the list may be supplemented from time to time by the Government. Thus, UBBL clearly identifies the roles of various bodies in preparation of heritage list and HCC has an advisory role only. Therefore, the grading and listing which has been recommended by the subcommittee is beyond their jurisdiction or that of HCC. It is quite clear that HCC can consider any list only for advisory purposes after the same has been referred to them by the local body or the Government.
3. Further, it is not procedurally correct for the subcommittee to consider these 62 buildings whereas they themselves go on to recommend a procedure for preparing such lists. The sub-committee has failed to specify the details of the features/characteristics of individual buildings based on which they have been graded. It is also not stated in the report that the members of the sub-committee have visited and appraised each of these buildings properly. Moreover, the criteria prepared by them was neither approved by HCC, nor by the government/local bodies who are ultimately responsible to approve any new criteria. In
Page 7 of 18
WP(C) 2731/2017
view of this only, the sub-committee was tasked to prepare the criteria, which was to be shared with the Government and the local bodies for further action, as may be considered appropriate. Thus the entire recommendations made in Part III of the report of the sub-committee are without any basis, arbitrary and completely ad hoc. Hence, these recommendations are not acceptable.
4. It was also observed that the criteria recommended by the sub-committee in Part 1 of the report appears to be a cut-and-paste job from heritage laws of various local bodies in India and abroad without much application of mind. The criteria are open-ended, vague (e.g. architectural significance criterion 7), overlapping (e.g. historical significance criteria 1 and 2 overlap with the criterion 4), repetitive (e.g. architectural significance criteria 5, 6 and 12) and even meaningless (e.g. architectural significance criterion 10). It is clear that the sub-committee has not deliberated on what could be significant to Delhi in view of various practices being followed across India or abroad, specifically in the context of contemporary buildings. It was noted that nothing specific to Delhi has been recommended. Given the vagueness and the open-ended character of these recommendations, almost any and every building could end up as a heritage building. Hence, such criteria are not acceptable.
5. It was further noted that the sub-committee‟s recommendation that buildings should be at least 15 years old for them to be considered as heritage buildings, is completely arbitrary. This recommendation is against the very sense of the word „heritage‟, which means “valued objects and qualities such as historic buildings
Page 8 of 18
WP(C) 2731/2017
and cultural traditions that have been passed down from previous generations” (refer online Oxford dictionary). Even if we consider a time interval of merely two generations as one of the essential conditions for a building to be considered heritage, the minimum time period would be 30x2, i.e. 60 years. It was pointed out by Member Secretary that when the notifications of the heritage buildings were done in 2009 and 2010 by GNCTD, the list consisted of buildings constructed prior to 1947. Thus, all the buildings notified as heritage buildings were at least 62 years old at the time of notification. In view of the above, it was decided that the buildings to be included in the heritage list should be at least 60 years old.
6. With every passing year, buildings are being constructed in increasing numbers. In view of technological advances, these buildings are likely to last longer as compared to the buildings constructed in the past. Therefore, in order to ensure that only those buildings which truly deserve to be preserved or conserved are identified as heritage buildings, the criteria should be highly selective besides being very objective and transparent.
7. In view of the above, it was decided to reject the report of the sub-committee. It was further decided to form a new sub-committee to prepare objective, transparent and meaningful criteria for inclusion of modern buildings in the heritage list, based on best national and international practices. However, these buildings will have to be at least 60 years old. The criteria so prepared would then be shared with the local bodies and the Government of NCT of Delhi, who are responsible for inviting objections and suggestions from
Page 9 of 18
WP(C) 2731/2017
the public and supplementing the list of heritage sites.”
(underlining supplied)
Page 10 of 18
WP(C) 2731/2017
was of the view that the task of the sub-Committee was only to prepare a criteria which was then to be shared between the Government and the legal bodies for further action. But found that the sub-Committee, instead of restricting itself to the said task, recommended certain buildings to be preserved.
Page 11 of 18
WP(C) 2731/2017
“1.14 Composition of Heritage Conservation
Committee
The Heritage Conservation Committee shall be
appointed by the Government comprising of:
| (i) | Special Secretary / Additional Secretary, (Minister of Urban Development) |
Chairman |
|---|---|---|
| (ii) | Additional Director General (Architecture), CPWD |
Member |
| (iii) | Structural Engineer having experience of ten years in the field and membership of the Institution of Engineers, India Architect having 10 years experience (a) Urban Designer (b) Conservation Architect |
Member |
| (iv) | Environmentalist having in-depth knowledge and experience of 10 years of the subject. |
Member |
| (v) | Historian having knowledge of the region & having 10years experience in thefield. |
Member |
| (vi) | Natural historian having 10 years experience in thefield. |
Member |
| (vii) | Chief Planner, Town & Country Planning Organisation |
Member |
| (viii) | Chief Town Planner, MCD | Member |
| (ix) | Commissioner(Plg.), DDA | Member |
| (x) | Chief Architect, NDMC | Member |
| (xi) | Representative of DG, Archeological |
Member |
Page 12 of 18
WP(C) 2731/2017
| Survey of India | ||
|---|---|---|
| (xii) | Secretary, Delhi Urban Art Commission | Member Secretary |
| (xiii) | The Committee shall have the power to co- opt up to three additional members who may have related experience |
|
| (xiv) | The tenure of the Chairman and Members of other than Government Department/Local Bodies shall be three years.” |
“Decisions:
Concept of the proposal was found acceptable.
Observations:
Page 13 of 18
WP(C) 2731/2017
1. The proposal was submitted directly by the General Manager (Works), India Trade Promotion Organisation (ITPO) for conceptual consideration of the Commission with due certifications.
2. The proposal is for developing integrated Exhibitioncum-Convention Complex for carrying out trade promotion activities on the approx.123.5 acres of land at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi.
3. The proposal comprises of Convention Centre, Exhibition Halls, Hotel with other supporting infrastructure, buildings, services etc.
4. As per the submission received the integrated complex is to be developed after demolition of the existing building structures in the Pragati Maidan Complex in phases. To take care of the Traffic Transportation aspects, the proposal besides other improvements envisages traffic flow through tunnel roads and provides for underground parking facility.
5. The earlier case history of the matter including ongoing Court case in the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court WP(C) no. 5271/2016-INTACH Vs Heritage Conservations Committee (HCC), Delhi Urban Art Commission & Others was taken note off by the Commission.
6. The proposal received was scrutinized. The concept of the proposal was found acceptable by the Commission.”
Page 14 of 18
WP(C) 2731/2017
that the proposal submitted by the respondent No.3 has been accepted and the Master/Layout plan in respect of redevelopment of Integrated Exhibition-cum-Convention Centre i.e. IECC at Pragati Maidan has been accepted. While taking the said decision, the Commission has also taken note of a petition filed by INTACH being WP(C) 5271/2016 titled Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) vs. Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC), Delhi Urban Art Commission & Ors. ,. Even this decision of the Delhi Urban Art Commission is not impugned by the petitioner.
Page 15 of 18
WP(C) 2731/2017
has taken a conscious decision that the only buildings, which are more than 60 years old, would qualify to be considered as a heritage. The buildings, subject matter of the present petition, are admittedly not older than 60 years and thus would not qualify to be considered as a heritage. Since the decision of the Heritage Conservation Committee is not challenged, the view taken by the Heritage Conservation Committee would have to be accepted.
1 Basavaiah (Dr.) Versus Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Others; (2010) 8 SCC 372
Page 16 of 18
WP(C) 2731/2017
of the work to the plaintiff.
2 Pramod Kumar Versus U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Others; (2008) 7 SCC 153
Page 17 of 18
WP(C) 2731/2017
Committee, has taken a conscious decision not to even consider buildings that are less than 60 years in age as heritage and this decision is not assailed. Thus there is no legal right in the petitioner to seek declaration of the subject buildings as heritage and their preservation.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 20, 2017/st
Page 18 of 18
WP(C) 2731/2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner can seek mandamus to declare buildings as heritage structures when the expert committee has excluded them based on age criteria not challenged by the petitioner.
Whether international conventions on cultural heritage create an enforceable individual right against the State to preserve specific buildings.
Whether the court can interfere with the decision of an expert committee that buildings less than 60 years old do not qualify for heritage status.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amar Nath Sehgal vs. Union of IndiaDistinguished¶110
: 2005 (117) DLT 717 · Who else cites this
Indian Institute of Architects & Ors. vs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶10
(supra)
Basavaiah (Dr.) Versus Dr. H.L. Ramesh & OthersExplained¶111
(2010) 8 SCC 372 · Who else cites this
Pramod Kumar Versus U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and OthersExplained¶116
(2008) 7 SCC 153 · Who else cites this
Raj Rewal
Union of India
Sanjeev Sachdeva
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
