MUMBAI: Bombay high court on Tuesday permitted a bunch of south Mumbai residents to approach the appropriate authority in the Central or State Government or even the Municipal Corporation of greater Mumbai (MCGM) to seek a declaration of Vithal Rukumai temple site at Thakurdwar in Girgaum, Mumbai, as an ancient and historical monument of National or State importance or for its inclusion in the list of heritage buildings and heritage precincts.
Shaila Gore, 64, a housewife and three other residents from the four persons from Thakurdwar area in south Mumbai had in 2014 filed the petition in public interest. They were seeking protection of the temple saying it is over 200 years old and cannot be demolished for a redevelopment project. Their lawyer S K Halwasia contended before Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor that between 1888 and 1897 AD, Chaffekar Brothers, the revered freedom fighters used to visit the temple, Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahadev Govind Ranade and many others used to visit the temple and its been mentioned as an ancient temple in books.
The plot is reserved for ‘welfare centre and parking lot’ and some private persons intend to carry out redevelopment there, said the petitioners, seeking orders for experts to inquire and protect the site under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate representing a developer, however submitted that till date there is no declaration of the temple site as “ancient’’ or historical "monument" under the Act. Another builder represented by counsel Karl Tamboly also opposed the petition saying it was filed only to stall redevelopment.
The HC after hearing Ram Apte senior counsel for Centre and Abhay Patki additional government pleader for the State after considering all submissions directed petitioners to approach the appropriate authority and directed that "till such authority takes a decision there is to be a status quo."
The HC judgment said an affidavit of the director, Directorate of Archaeological and Museum, Maharashtra clearly states the "petition is misconceived".
In a "categorical submission", the director said "under provisions of the (State’s) 1960 Act the temple has not been declared as State protected monument and also that the temple has lost its historical and architectural context on account of renovation done in the year 2007 by the local residents."
The HC in its judgment said, "What startles the Court is that no efforts by the Petitioners have been made to seek declaration of the temple site either as a historical and ancient monument or its inclusion in the list of Heritage Buildings and Heritage Precincts under the aforementioned statutory provisions. If the Petitioners seek any protection and preservation to be provided to the temple site by the State authorities or its instrumentalities, or authorities of Central Government or authorities of MCGM, the temple site needs to be first considered for declaration to be an ancient / historical / heritage site or monument either under Section 4 of Act by the Central Government or under Section 4 of the 1960 Act by the State Government or under the provisions of the DCR by the authorities of the MCGM."
The HC reasoned that in the facts of the case, the site needs to be preserved till decision by the authority concerned is taken. Otherwise, the very purpose of applying for seeking declaration of the temple site as an ancient, historical monument of State, National importance or as a heritage site shall get defeated.
The HC said though it is unable to direct any expert body as sought, but after perusing certain reports it noted recommendations have been made for a need to preserve the temple site. It thus permitted the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority which then must decide within six month uninfluenced by any observation it made.
