Court awards a plot near Humayun’s Tomb to bus company, ASI shrugs it off

Located on Mathura Road — metres away from the 16th century monument Arab ki Sarai in the Humayun’s Tomb complex — the plot of land, according to conservation architects, acts as a buffer for the protected monument.

The recent development, they said, comes as a major blow to conservation efforts in the area. “The Arab ki Sarai is an integral part of the world heritage site and the land acts as a buffer Humayun’s Tomb complex from the busy Mathura Road. It is critical that every effort be made to ensure this land remains in the ownership of the ASI,” conservation architect Ratish Nanda of the Aga Khan Trust for Culture said.

ASI officials, on the other hand, said the land was never owned by the ASI. They said it was handed over to them for maintenance and care in April last year. “The ASI was given the land only last year for maintenance. Following this, we spent nearly Rs 9 lakh to build a wall around the property to save it from encroachment. We had started landscaping work in the area. However, owing to the court order, the land has now been given to the bus company. We demolished the wall last week,” Vasant Kumar Swarankar, Superintending Archaeologist, ASI (Delhi Circle), said.

In 2008, bus company owner I S Goel had filed a civil suit claiming that the plot was owned by his company. According to ASI sources, the L&DO department failed to substantiate its ownership with documentary proof and so the case was decided in favour of the bus company.

Following this, an execution application was filed in the Tis Hazari court by the bus company to restore possession of the disputed property to it.

The order issued by Civil Judge of West Delhi Sushant Changotra on January 31 said the Judgement Debtor No. 2 (JD No. 2) “is willing to offer the ownership of the wall to the Decree Holder” (I.S. Goel bus company) “and if the said proposal is not acceptable then the JD no. 2 is also willing to demolish the wall.”

The ASI officials said they would not be appealing the order in a higher court. Swarankar said, “We do not have ownership on the plot. On what basis do we take up the issue to a higher court?”