Tag Archives: Public Interest Litigation

Heritage Trust v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition (PIL) No. 179 of 2020

Date: 15^th June 2021.

Quorum: Hon’ble Chief J. Vikram Nath, J. Ashutosh J. Shastri.

Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.

 

Facts of the case:

The Heritage Trust, a public trust, filed this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition against the Union of India, Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd., the National Academy of Indian Railways (NAIR), and the State of Gujarat. The petitioners sought to restrain the respondents from constructing any building in the gardens or in front of the Pratap Vilas Palace in Vadodara as the construction would obstruct the view and ambiance of the palace or its gardens. Pratap Vilas Palace is a 106-year-old heritage site owned by the Indian Railways. NAIR has been functioning in this palace since 1952. The palace was constructed in the Indo–Saracenic style by Maharaja Sayajirao III Gaekwad, the Maharaja of Baroda. It is located in the midst of 55 acres of greenery, including woods and gardens with diverse flora and fauna surrounding it. It also houses a Peacock garden and is a habitat for migratory birds. The palace has been listed as a heritage property by government bodies, and NAIR and the Ministry of Railways have acknowledged the need to preserve it.

The respondents planned to construct a new 4-storey academic block for the National Rail and Transportation Institute (NRTI) within the palace campus at a distance of 56 ft from the palace. The petitioners filed a PIL seeking judicial intervention to prevent any construction activities that threaten the ambiance of Pratap Vilas Place and to preserve it from future construction plans by the government authorities. They believed that the construction of a new block or any building would destroy the aesthetic beauty, ambiance, and heritage value of the palace and its surrounding gardens.

Legal issues:

1. Whether the proposed construction of a new academic block by the respondents would obstruct the view and ruin the ambience of the Pratap Vilas Palace and its gardens, thereby violating the doctrine of public trust and the constitutional obligation to protect heritage properties?
2. Whether the respondents have taken adequate measures to preserve the heritage value of palace?

Legal provisions:

1. The Constitution of India.

• Article 14 (Right to Equality).
• Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
• Article 48A and Article 51A(g) (Fundamental duties).
• Article 49 (Protection of monuments and places of historical importance).

2. Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
3. Gujarat Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1965
4. Doctrine of Public Trust which allows the state to take affirmative action for effective management and control of natural resources.

Contentions by the petitioners:

The learned counsel for the petitioner raised several concerns regarding the preservation of the heritage property. The petitioner argued that since the woods and greenery enhance the beauty of the palace, it is considered as an integral part of the palace and needs to be protected. The construction of a modern building amidst the woods or gardens would be an eyesore and destroy the ambiance and grandeur of the palace. The size and style of the new academic block would be incompatible with the Indo-Saracenic architecture style of the palace, and the focus would shift away from the palace. Additionally, they argued that protecting the woods around the palace is vital from both environmental and heritage perspectives. The palace cannot be viewed separately from the gardens as they mutually enhance the beauty of each other, therefore necessitating the preservation of the greenery around the palace.

The state has a constitutional obligation under Articles 14, 21, and 51A to protect the country’s heritage for the present and future generations. The palace, along with its surroundings, qualifies as an ancient monument under central and state laws, even though it is not formally recognized. Therefore, the proposed construction would potentially destroy the ambiance of the palace and its surroundings. The petitioners also raised their concerns regarding the impact of the construction on migratory birds and the environment. They argued that the construction would endanger the migratory birds visiting the woods, contrary to Article 51A(g) on protecting living creatures. Several hundreds of trees would be chopped for this purpose, damaging the city’s flora contrary to Articles 21, 51A(g), and 48A.

They relied on several precedents, including the Secretary and Curator of Victoria Memorial Hall vs. Howrah Gantantrik Nagrik Samity [(2010) 3 SCC732], Rajeev Mankotia vs. Secretary to the President of India, [(1997) 10 SCC 441], Kusheshwar Prasad Singh vs State of Punjab, [(2007) 11 SCC 447] and others. The High Court rejected a few precedents and accepted a few others.

The appellants sought to protect the palace and its premises as a heritage property based on the constitutional and public trust principles.

Contentions of the respondents:

The learned counsel for the respondents argued that it is not mandatory or obligatory for the government to declare all monuments over 100 years as protected or of national significance. They contended that the government’s inaction in not declaring the Pratap Vilas Palace as a protected monument should not be considered as it is not required to do so for every old monument. The respondents further stated that the location of the new academic block was shifted 321 ft away from the palace, which is a considerable distance of 265 ft more than the initial plan. They claimed that this distance would not obstruct the view or ruin the ambiance of the palace. Furthermore, the design of the building and its height would ensure that it does not diminish the beauty of the palace and its premises.

The respondents stated that they are committed to minimizing the impact of the ecosystem affected by the construction. They stated that the most affected trees would be transplanted, and for those that cannot be transplanted, three times the number of trees would be planted. Additionally, they have planned to plant an extra 800 trees within the campus to enhance the ecosystem and maintain the flora. The migratory birds would not be affected due to the vast area of the campus and the commitment to maintaining sufficient greenery. They argued that the construction would only cover a small portion of the campus, leaving ample space for the birds to cohabit.

The respondents further argued that the doctrine of public trust, which requires the government to protect natural resources from public use, is not applicable in this case. They contended that the property in question is owned by the Indian Railways and is not a natural resource like a river, forest, or seashore. Moreover, the Railways has committed to protecting the heritage of the Pratap Vilas Palace. The respondents distinguished the present case from the judgments cited by the petitioners, which dealt with the conversion of public property for commercial purposes by private parties. They argued that the new building is being constructed for an educational purpose, not for commercial purpose and the property is owned by the Indian Railways, a public entity.

They relied on earlier judgments like Sachidananda Pandey v. State of West Bengal [(1987) 2 SCC 295], Anand Arya v. UOI [(2011) 1 SCC 744], M.C. Mehta v. UOI, Iqbal Masud Khan v. Director General and others.

The respondents contended that the construction would not adversely impact the heritage, ambiance, or ecology of the Pratap Vilas Palace and its premises. They provided measures to mitigate any potential impacts.

Analysis of judgement:

The Hon’ble High Court analyzed the contentions and judgments cited by both parties in detail. It found that the petitioners’ critical concerns regarding the obstruction of the view of the palace, damage to its ambiance, and impact of flora and fauna were adequately addressed by the respondents’ measures. The Court observed that by shifting the location of the new academic building 265 ft further away from the initially proposed site, the respondents ensured that Raja Baug would remain untouched. It found that the distance of 321 ft away from the palace would not cause any obstruction to its majestic view. The Court noted that the height and construction plan of the building would not destroy the view of the palace or ruin its ambiance. The height of the four stories is improbable to affect the heritage property or the fauna. The Court appreciated the commitment of respondents to minimize the loss of trees, transplantation of affected trees, and initiative to plant 800 new trees within the campus. They acknowledged that these measures were sufficient to maintain the ecosystem and green cover. The Court took note of the respondents’ allocation of Rs. 20 crores for refurbishing and preserving the palace building, which addressed the petitioners’ concern about protecting the heritage.

Additionally, the Court found that the doctrine of public trust was not applicable, as the property in question belonged to the Indian Railways, a public entity, and was not a natural resource being converted for commercial use. The respondents were expanding their infrastructure within their campus without interfering with the heritage building, flora, and fauna.

After considering the respondents’ commitments and finding the cited judgments by petitioners inapplicable to the present case, the Court dismissed the petition, concluding that there were no grounds for intervention.

Conclusion:

The judgment, in this case, holds significant importance as it strikes a balance between heritage conservation and development. The judgment is proof that with adequate measures and careful planning, development is possible without adversely affecting the environment. It established a framework for evaluating such cases, considering g factors like the nature of the property, the purpose and measure proposed by the project proponents.

Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

Click here to read the full judgement

 

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.