Gujarat HC chides petitioners for not doing research on heritage value of Pushpakoot in Vadodara

An archive pic of Pushpakoot

The petitioners, relying on news reports indicating that the bungalow is in the process of being demolished, had moved the Gujarat HC on Monday seeking to stop the demolition process while citing that the property has heritage value.

During the course of the hearing, the state indicated that the bungalow was sold to the state government in 1978 and the legal department of the state gave permission to demolish the property in 2022.

It was also submitted that it is not a designated or declared heritage property. Pushpakoot, the iconic bungalow which was once also the residence of cricket legend Vijay Hazare, saw the Charity Commissioner’s office awarded a contract through the Roads and Buildings Department of Vadodara to a Surat-based contractor to pull down the heritage boutique bungalow.

Granting the petitioners an opportunity to amend their petition, and supplement with documents indicating to the bungalow’s heritage value and historical importance, the court posted the case to October 4. (Express photo by Bhupendra Rana)

Chief Justice Agarwal Tuesday told the counsel for petitioners, Salil Thakore, that the court cannot issue an injunction order on state property, especially when nothing has been done for these many years to have the property designated as an ancient monument or heritage property and that their remedy lies before the civil court.

Expressing its ire that the court is being used as a proxy tool, the Chief Justice told the petitioners, “You have never taken up this issue for years together that this monument should be declared as a heritage monument and suddenly you’re coming up today…had you approached the issue you would have approached Archaeological Society of India (ASI)…what have you done for years together ?..If you’re really working in this field, you are sincere about it, you would have done a lot.

The Bench said the court cannot take exception to the state’s decision on a property which is not declared heritage property.

“There’s an NGO INTACH, you could’ve taken help from them…why do you use the court as a tool to do your own work in the field? You come with a newspaper report and get our orders, we are not supposed to do this…We have to be careful while entertaining a PIL. You have not done anything about this, this is not a declared heritage property, it is now a government property. Once it is a govt property, we are not supposed to issue any injunction, go to the civil court…you have not gone through the provisions.

The court criticised the petitioners for lack of research on the matter and not placing on record a single document to show the building has heritage value.

“…you have simply rushed to the court…don’t file publicity litigation, work on the ground…we are not happy with the way this PIL has been prepared…history is not created by us, it is written in the books, the documents. History means a documented fact of a bygone era. It should be your effort to first go through those facts and bring it before us, otherwise it will be issuing notice merely on the news report,” the Chief Justice stated.

Granting the petitioners an opportunity to amend their petition, and supplement with documents indicating to the bungalow’s heritage value and historical importance, the court posted the case to October 4.

The court also instructed the assistant government pleader to do research on the process and norms of declaration for heritage monuments “and some factual aspects to this very matter, looking to the person who has filed this petition.”