A section of citizens in Bengaluru is upset that the Karnataka High Court has given a green light to demolish a heritage building inside Cubbon Park to make way for a seven-storey annexe building for the high court. What has angered activists is not just the permission to destroy the heritage structure, but also the permission for new construction inside the park itself.
The heritage building in question is a pre-19th Century-era building abandoned by the erstwhile Karnataka Government Insurance Department (KGID), which has gone through some modifications over the years. A Change.org petition has been started seeking the reversal of the order and has got more than 1400 signatures (at the time of writing).
The order was passed by a single judge bench Justice PS Dinesh Kumar on October 17, while hearing a petition by HC registrar Rajendra Badamikar, which was filed in 2014. The registrar had approached the court seeking its permission to cut and remove 17 trees in the area, which currently houses the old Election Commissioner’s office and the KGID building. While the high court allowed the demolition of the heritage structures, it did not grant permission to cut the 17 trees.
This will be the first new building to come up in the Cubbon Park premises after a ban on further construction was put in place by an HC division bench in 2001.
Priya Chetty Rajagopal, who initiated the campaign and heads the group ‘Heritage Beku,’ said she has faith in the courts and hopes that the court will revisit the decision. She stated that along with Heritage Beku, many other civic groups will carry a series of campaigns to prevent the building from being razed.
“The issue of Cubbon Park getting modified is non-negotiable. The issue is emotive as well as Cubbon Park, just like Lalbag and the Vidhana Soudha, is an identity of Bengaluru. And if you see, in the last 60-80 years, the 300-acre plus area has quietly come down to 220 acres. The bottom line is that the fence is eating the crop,” she said.
She added, “But we have tremendous faith in the courts, as we can see in the landmark judgements regarding the rule surrounding crackers, or the judgement on the tree committee and the tree census. The Draft Revised Master Plan 2031 specifically covers heritage guidelines and we should abide by this. As a beloved, iconic and highly emotive aspect of our city’s skyline and history, we must do all we can to preserve our Cubbon Park and our public space.”
Leo Saldhana, a senior advocate and coordinator of the Environment Support Group, said he and others are considering to approach the same court to reverse the order.
“Issue here is that it is not clear whether the issue of land-use change as seen for heritage buildings has been advocated or not. But apart from the trees, the question remains about the land use and the heritage value of the building in question,” he said.
He added, “If this issue has not been addressed then the Division Bench can be approached. The order is very brief and one has to go through the pleadings to understand further. But it does not seem to be in concurrence with the earlier orders and sometimes orders can be bad in law and can be challenged.”
“The other technicality which needs to be relooked into is whether a single bench order is acceptable when there is a principal bench order protecting Cubbon Park. That is also a question that needs to be tested. So the 1998 order said that we not only protect a park full of trees but also a park which is full of history.”