Mumbai's Development Work Can't Be Stopped But It Cannot Trample Heritage Structures: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 10) while disposing of a petition filed by the trustees of the heritage JN Petit building alleging damages to the structure due to the underground construction work for the Metro III, held that though development works in a city like Mumbai cannot be stopped but the same cannot be permitted to run roughshod over the concerns of preserving and maintaining heritage buildings for posterity.

A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain noted that the JN Petit building in Mumbai's Fort area, was constructed in 1898 and restored again in 2014-2015 and that the UNESCO awarded this restoration as a fine example of cultural heritage conservation.

"Therefore, there can be no doubt that the protection and preservation of the Petitioners' building is a must. Whilst the march of development and infrastructural projects cannot be halted in a city like Mumbai, such a march cannot be permitted to run roughshod over the concerns of preserving and maintaining heritage buildings for posterity," the judges held. 

Further, the bench said that the development authorities must conduct themselves in a manner that does not harm the heritage structures. 

"Respondents must conduct themselves and their activities in a manner that does not harm or unduly destroy the Heritage Structures. Any construction or development that ignores the preservation of Heritage Structures or results in wanton destruction or damage cannot be regarded as lawful or appropriate unless all legal formalities and procedures are followed," the judges observed. 

The bench made it clear that the State, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) and also the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) - all. responsible for constructing the Metro III line, cannot adopt a perpetually denialist stance or hurriedly carry out construction or developmental activities that affect Heritage Areas or Heritage Structures.

"There are cases where such Heritage Areas or Structures are irreversibly harmed or destroyed, and the authorities responsible for such destruction or those whose lack of oversight caused it often plead fait accompli. This conduct cannot be tolerated," the bench said. 

According to the Trustees, their building was constructed in 1898 in the Neo-Gothic Revival style and the said structure features various ornamental, decorative, and distinctive elements, including a circular staircase tower, bouquets, finials, and tower turrets that shape its silhouette. The petitioners stated that this building has an extremely shallow foundation, only around three metres deep, and extends beyond the superstructure of the building. It is acknowledged that this building is a Grade II A Heritage Structure, it was stated. 

The petitioners alleged that due to the Metro III work, initially a limestone finial got dislodged from the building an fell in its garden and was damaged in August 2017, when MMRCL was undergoing with its drilling work for the underground line. The petitioners even alleged that due to the excavation work, there was too much of vibrations because of which the structure was damaged severely. 

In September 2017, an expert committee was constituted by another division bench of the HC while hearing the instant plea. The said committee was tasked with investigating the concerns of the trustees and recommending how the MMRCL must conduct its excavation work so as to ensure that there is no damage to the heritage structure. 

Accordingly, a report was submitted and the MMRCL implemented the precautionary measures as recommended by the expert committee and the work was then ordered to be resumed in November 2017. 

In January 2025, the petitioners filed an affidavit informing the HC that the MMRCL had removed the safety equipments from their structure in the early part of 2023 claiming that the work was completed. Further, the petitioners apprehended that once the Metro III line starts, the building may again get damaged due to the intense vibrations from the running trains. 

However, the MMRCL contested that they have already examined the vibrations and the noise of the trains and that the same are quite within the permissible limits. 

Taking note of the contentions, the bench said, "In the present case however, whatever may have been the approach and the attitude of MMRCL before the petitioner filed this petition, once this Petition was filed and interim orders were made by this Court, at least from the material placed on record by both the parties up to now, we find it difficult to uphold the allegations of callousness or disregard to the concerns expressed by the Petitioners regarding their Heritage Building."

At least from the material placed on record, prima facie, the bench found it difficult to accept the Petitioners' belated contention about some serious damage to their building on account of the works which, according to the Petitioners, were completed in 2023.

"Therefore, if the Petitioners have any serious grievances about any damage to their building, which damage, they can establish or at least they propose to establish is attributable to the construction works on the Metro Line III project undertaken by MMRCL and its contractors, it would be open to the Petitioners to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court for claiming reliefs like compensation etc. However, based on the material on record, it will not be possible for this Court to examine such issues and grant the Petitioners relief of either restoration of the allegedly damaged Heritage Structure or compensation," the bench said. 

It however, ordered the MMRCL to restore or replicate the fallen 'limestone finial' to its original form within eight months. 

Appearance: 

Advocates Ferzana Behramkamdin and Kalyani Deshmukh instructed by FZB & Associates for the Petitioners.

Assistant Government Pleader Manisha Gawde represented the State.

Advocate Kavita Solunke represented MMRDA.

Advocates Mayur Khandeparkar and Heenal Wadhava instructed by The Law Point represented MMRCL.

Case Title: DVM Patel vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 2931 of 2018)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment