Madras HC clears tomb relocation at Madras Law College | No protected status as historical or artistic interest absent | Foundation stone laying permitted
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madras Division Bench of Justice M. Sundar and Justice N. Sathish Kumar delivered a verdict dismissing the challenges against the relocation of tombs situated in the campus of Madras Law College, located adjacent to the High Court premises. The Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision permitting relocation and dismissed the writ appeals opposing it. In a connected writ petition seeking to restrain proposed construction in the campus, the Court recorded that the Building Committee had addressed immediate concerns and directed that the petition be listed along with related appeals. It also permitted the foundation stone laying ceremony for the new building to proceed without formal permission, while expressing confidence that all planning regulations and safety norms would be adhered to.
The matters included two writ appeals and one writ petition. The appeals arose from an order of a Single Judge which had allowed a writ petition seeking relocation of the tombs on the ground that they were not ancient monuments protected under law. The parties to the writ appeals included governmental bodies and private individuals with varying interests in the dispute.
The background of the case traces back to the notification dated 20.01.1921 issued under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, wherein the tombs were notified as protected monuments. It was noted that the tomb in question was identified as the tomb of Elihu Yale, though later submissions indicated that Elihu Yale himself was not buried there. Rather, the tombs were those of Jacca David Yale (Elihu Yale’s son) and Joseph Hynmer, Yale’s friend. No correction had been made to the notification for over a century.
The Madras Law College building had suffered damage following nearby metro rail tunnelling and was repaired. Following this, a proposal was made to use the Law College premises to build a new five-storey building to house the Registry and related offices of the High Court. Objections were raised regarding the construction and the need for a master plan for orderly development. These concerns were voiced through writ petitions filed by senior members of the Bar, who argued that the tombs and the precincts merited heritage protection.
In parallel, the Building Committee of the High Court met and discussed the issue, concluding that more expert opinions would be needed before taking a final decision on the construction work. The Committee decided that no construction activity would take place near the old Law College building until this was resolved. However, it permitted the proposed foundation stone laying ceremony for the new building to go ahead.
In the course of litigation, the parties put forth various legal arguments. The petitioners opposing the relocation referred to the 1921 notification and argued that the tombs should continue to enjoy protected status. They contended that relocation without due legal process would violate preservation laws. The State authorities, however, argued that the tombs had no archaeological, historical, or artistic value to qualify as protected monuments and emphasized that the notification had been issued in error. They also highlighted that no steps had been taken for over a century to correct the notification or assert such protection.
Statutory provisions referred to during the case included the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and related municipal and heritage laws governing construction activities within Chennai. Furthermore, the State pointed to the urgency and importance of expanding the Law College infrastructure to meet the needs of modern legal education.
Precedents cited by both sides included cases on the interpretation of protected monument notifications, the role of expert bodies in deciding heritage status, the powers of authorities under municipal and planning statutes, and the limits of judicial review in matters involving heritage conservation and development.
During the proceedings, the Court was informed that multiple writ appeals and petitions had been filed on overlapping issues regarding the tomb relocation and proposed construction. These matters were tagged together for common adjudication. At the stage of proceedings, a consensus appeared to emerge that the tomb relocation issue and proposed new construction were matters intertwined with administrative planning and heritage management, necessitating judicial consideration of statutory interpretation and proper process.
The Court began by noting the historical background, stating "it is not in disputation that Elihu Yale has not been buried in MLC campus (to be noted, he was not buried in India at all)". Further, it observed that "only his 3 year old son Jacca David Yale and Elihu Yale’s friend Joseph Hynmer have been buried in MLC campus." Therefore, the Court concluded, "there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that there is no notification qua any monument for Elihu Yale."
The Court then analysed the legal status of the tombs, stating "absent notification for Elihu Yale, said monument is far from historical interest to be a protected monument." It recorded "there is no material to demonstrate archaeological or artistic interest about which there is allusion elsewhere in this judgment."
The State’s argument regarding the error in the 1921 notification was noted by the Court, which recorded "the submission of learned Deputy Solicitor that there is a error in 1921 notification is very fair." However, the Court cautioned that "no steps have been taken until this day (for over 104 years) to issue any errata or corrigendum."
Referring to the settled legal position, the Court reminded itself of the Mohinder Singh Gill principle and recorded that "action has to be judged by reasons while making an order excluding supplementary reasons in the shape of affidavits." Further reference was made to Gordhandas Bhanji, where it was stated "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order."
Regarding expert opinion, the Court stated "directions as sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted and the experts' opinion should not be interfered with." The Commissioner of Archaeology had earlier opined that "the Church need not be protected as ancient heritage monument of historic importance and the Church had undergone repairs, alterations, additions, extensions number of times with modern materials."
On the role of judges while dealing with expert opinion, the Court noted "judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters and Judges must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the expert."
The Court recorded submissions about the nature of the tombs, observing "it is also pointed out that the tombs were constructed only after the death of the individuals concerned and that too by their close relatives and they are not religious tombs."
Regarding judicial review, the Court quoted the Supreme Court decision in Sarvepalli Ramaiah, recording "Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed not against the decision but the decision making process, a patent illegality and/or error apparent on the face of the decision which goes to the root of the decision, may vitiate the decision making process."
The Court took note of concerns regarding heritage and conservation, and while discussing this, it recorded "However, this order only means that henceforth and hereon the need and necessity for a master plan for entire MHC including Heritage building and organized development (including five storeyed building) as well as conservation as projected by the writ petitioner is accepted."
With regard to the foundation stone laying ceremony and related objections, the Court noted "the Building Committee is seized of the matter and it is expected that the concerns of heritage nature shall be kept in mind while taking up the matter."
Finally, summarising its findings on the writ appeals, the Court recorded "we find that the appellants and the writ petitioners have not made out any case for interference."
The Court directed that the writ appeals stand dismissed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge permitting the relocation of the tombs shall remain undisturbed. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petitions filed therein also stand dismissed and shall perish with the disposal of the writ appeals. The Court ordered that there shall be no costs in respect of these proceedings.
Insofar as the writ petition filed in relation to the proposed construction is concerned, the Court recorded the decision of the Building Committee, which addressed the immediate concerns raised therein. Considering this, the Court directed that the writ petition be tagged and listed along with the pending writ appeals and other connected matters.
The Court also clarified, while disposing of the writ petition, that no formal permission from any authority is required for conducting the foundation stone laying ceremony. Accordingly, it permitted the said function to proceed as scheduled. The writ miscellaneous petition filed along with the writ petition stood closed. No order as to costs was passed in this regard as well.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. A. Yogeshwaran, Advocate; Mr. T. Mohan, Senior Advocate (Writ Petitioner).
For the Respondents: Mr. P. S. Raman, Advocate General for the 1st Respondent; Mr. Ar. L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Vijay, Standing Counsel for the 2nd Respondent.
Case Title: The Registrar General, Madras High Court and Another v. T. Mohan and Others (with connected matters)
Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:1120
Case Number: W.A. Nos. 2401 of 2023 and 2570 of 2024 and W.P. No. 13881 of 2024
Bench: Justice M. Sundar and Justice N. Sathish Kumar
[Read/Download order]
