NO DEMOLITION

Supreme Court directs MCC to protect and restore Devaraja Market, Lansdowne Building

Mysuru: Putting an end to the long-drawn litigation over the historic Devaraja Market and Lansdowne Building in Mysuru, the Supreme Court has ordered the protection of the two heritage structures.

At the final hearing of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) on Aug. 6, the Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran made it clear that the Mysuru City Corporation (MCC) should consider the reports of IIT Roorkee and the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) on the conservation of the 19th-century heritage landmarks.

The SLP was filed by heritage advocate and author G. Sathyanarayana (popularly known as Gouri Satya), R. Raja Chandra, son-in-law of late Maharaja Jayachamaraja Wadiyar and others. The petitioners challenged the Karnataka High Court’s Aug. 8, 2023 judgment in Writ Petition No. 15215/2020 (PIL).

They opposed any move to demolish or reconstruct the structures, citing their classification under Section 2 (1ea) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and their inclusion in the Mysuru-Nanjangud Master Plan-2031 (Revision-II).

Expert opinions considered

Following the SLP, the Supreme Court stayed all demolition and reconstruction work. The Court subsequently asked IIT Roorkee and INTACH to submit their reports after inspecting the two sites. In their reports, based on a detailed structural analysis and audit conducted in October 2025, IIT Roorkee and INTACH experts said both Devaraja Market and Lansdowne Building could be restored and conserved, given their significant heritage value.

“In view of the report of the Committee, we are of the view that both the structures should be protected and necessary renovations and restoration work should be undertaken. For this, a comprehensive plan needs to be prepared by the MCC and the State Government,” the Court ruled, disposing of all pending applications.

“The State agencies may have their own conservation plan, but recommendations and suggestions of expert bodies should be taken into consideration,” the Bench told State’s counsel.

The Bench further clarified that its view to protect the two heritage structures was not “prima facie” but “firm” and hoped that the State would not make any U-turn from its commitment to the court to repair and restore them.