The Madras High Court recently allowed the relocation of the tomb of David Yale and Joseph Hymners – from the Madras Law College compound, located inside court premises, while observing that merely because it is 100 years old cannot be a reason to declare it as a protected monument.
David Yale was the son of Elihu Yale, the then governor of East India Company. The bench of Justice M Dhandapani noted that the structure has neither archaeological value nor historical importance.
He said the tomb is not an artistic masterpiece for it to be maintained as a protected monument. “…In such a scenario, the developmental activities necessitated in the present day scenario cannot be brushed aside for merely housing the cemetery of individuals, who have no historical significance,” the judge held.
Justice Dhandapani further said the tomb has to pave the way for the development of a parking space, which is the “need of the hour”.
The court was dealing with a writ petition seeking a declaration that the tomb is not an ancient monument. The petitioner also sought a direction for its relocation.
The submission was that since there was no designated parking space for advocates, staff, litigants, government officials at the high court premises, the administration had started constructing a multilevel parking lot in the available open space. But the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) had declared the tomb a protected monument, the plea stated.
The petitioner said the tomb was declared an ancient monument under Section 2(j) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, merely because it has existed for over 100 years.
While stressing that the tomb in question has no historical, archaeological or artistic significance or interest, the petitioner stated, “At best the tomb could be described as one containing the remains of persons, who were close to the then governor.”
The petitioner pointed out that the tomb had been declared a protected monument merely because it was more than 100 years old, which is not the intent of Section 2(j) of the Act. The larger question of public necessity has to be taken into consideration when the protection granted to the structure is not covered by Section 2(j) of the Act, the petitioner argued.
Though the court underscored that developmental necessity cannot rob the archaeological value of a structure, it pointed out that in this matter, the structure did not hold any historical or artistic significance. It is a mere cemetery brought under the ambit of a protected monument only to satisfy the thirst of the East India Company.
“The authority has to first divest its slavish mindset carried from the colonial era, which alone would mark the attainment of independence by our country,” said the court while directing the authorities to take steps to relocate the tomb to an appropriate place.
Comments
0 comment