The Hindu 02.11.2010
Bench dismisses petition to protect old market building
| Holds there is no iota of evidence to prove it was 300 years old |
“No other material to prove the age of the structure but for a plaque”
“Government alone can decide whether any building be protected as ancient monument”
MADURAI: The Madras High Court Bench here on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed against the Municipal Corporation's move to demolish a tiled-roof structure that once housed the old Central Market near Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple here.
A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice S. Nagamuthu said that there was no iota of evidence to prove that the structure was 300 years old and hence required to be protected under the Tamil Nadu Ancient and Historical Monumental and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1966.
The Bench agreed with the Corporation counsel M. Ravishankar's contention that there was no other material to prove the age of the structure but for a plaque stating that the market was declared open on November 11, 1906 by Sir Arthur Lawley, the then Governor of Madras.
“This is the only material available to know about the origin of the said market. Therefore, we have to hold that the market was established only in the year 1906,” the judges said and refused to accept petitioner's claim that the structure was built by Rani Mangammal in 1694 A.D.
“Similarly, though it is claimed that the Governor of Madurai by name Mohammed Yusuf Khan (alias Marudhanayagam) converted the same into a prison, there are no materials even to give a slightest inference of the same. Again, it is the contention of the petitioner that in the year 1768 A.D., it was restructured by Arcot Nawab… To substantiate this contention also, we are at a loss to find any materials,” they added.
The judges pointed out that the Assistant Director of Government Archaeological Department at the King Tirumalai Naick Palace here had inspected the old market site and sent a report to the government on October 25 opining that it did not satisfy any of the requirements to be declared an ‘ancient monument.'
It was followed by a letter written by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner, Department of Archaeology, to the Corporation Commissioner on October 26 stating that the government was protecting 86 monuments in the State under the Act and there was no proposal to include the old Central Market complex.
Further, the Bench concluded, a close reading of Section 3(1) of the Act would show that the government alone was empowered to decide, based on the materials before it, whether any structure or building should be protected as an ancient monument or archaeological site.
