The High Court of Jharkhand issued directions to the government and ASI to take immediate measures for the preservation, protection, and maintenance of Tagore Hill along with other structures. It stated that these structures, prima facie dating back 100 years and directly linked to Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore's family, must be protected, preserved, and maintained for future generations.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed the present PIL raising concerns about the deteriorating condition of Tagore Hill and its associated structures due to the State Government's negligence and prayed for giving directions to the respondents for the preservation of the sites.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the Tagore Hills and other structures were in very bad shape and due to the non-caring attitude of the State Government, the structures were depleting. It was further contended that part of the hill has been encroached and several constructions have sprouted at the instance of encroachers and land grabbers, which is illegal, and also needs to be removed.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that under the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 it is the Central Government that has the power to declare a structure or ancient site, as the case may be, of national importance through notification in the official Gazette of India and they have not denied the historical, cultural and archeological importance of the Tagore Hill and the Brahmo Mandir.
The ASI through counter affidavit contended that Section 2 of the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act specifies criteria for protection which include that the monuments or sites should be historical, archaeological for artistic interest and which have been in existence for not less than 100 years but there is no direct evidence that the Brahmo Temple is 100 years old and the same does not fulfil the other criteria of historical archaeological, architectural or artistic interest.
Observations of the Court:
The court referred to Sections 2 and 4(1) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 to state that if both are read conjointly, it would be clear that any structure or monument, which qualifies to be an “ancient monument” and is more than 100 years old, can be declared to be of national importance by the Central Government and this period of 100 years cannot be treated to be the period before promulgation of the Act. The court further stated that it is clear that as of date, the Brahmo Mandir” and other structures are more than 100 years old and the ASI needed to reconsider its decision on the issue of declaring the “Tagore Hill Structures” like “Brahmo Mandir”, “Shanti Dham” “Kusumtal” etc. as “Ancient Monuments”.
The court referred to the judgment in Rajeev Mankotia versus Secretary to the President of India which held that the monument, which is of national importance or state importance shall be protected, preserved, and maintained as a national monument or state monument.
The court stated that the ‘Tagore Hill’ and the structures thereon including “Brahmo Mandir” are definitely of State importance which has been acknowledged by the state and they have thus admitted that they are duty bound to maintain, protect and preserve the entire Tagore Hill and the structures thereon, including “Brahmo Mandir”, “Kusumtal” (below the Kusum Tree), “Shanti Dham” and the “Samadhisthal”.
The court stated that the present generation is only the custodian of the art, culture and heritage of the land, which they inherit from their previous generation not only for the purpose of basking in its glory but also to preserve them and hand them over to the next generation and the future generation will not forgive us if we destroy these, which we have inherited and further issued directions to the respondents for the preservation of the sites.
The decision of the Court:
The writ petition in the nature of PIL was disposed of with directions.
Case Title: Society for Preservation of Tribal Culture and Natural Beauty vs. Archaeological Survey of India and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
Case No.: W.P. (PIL) No. 6570 of 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Shailesh Poddar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Prashant Pallav and Mr. Ashutosh Anand
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
