New Delhi, Jan 16 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday expressed its intention to monitor the maintenance and preservation of heritage and archaeological sites in Delhi, noting prolonged neglect by statutory authorities. The observation was made while hearing a matter concerning illegal encroachment on the Lodhi-era Shaikh Ali ‘Gumti’, a nearly 500-year-old tomb of archaeological significance.
The Gumti had been illegally occupied by the Defence Colony Welfare Association (DCWA), with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) running an unauthorised office and parking facility at the site. The Supreme Court has over the past year passed a series of orders directing the removal of encroachments and has been closely monitoring restoration efforts.
When the matter was taken up on January 13, a bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice NK Singh recorded that the restoration work had been undertaken in the “right spirit” by the stakeholders concerned. The bench approved the final restoration plan, noting that it would require about four months for completion.
The court was informed that the petitioner, Rajeev Suri, had filed an application seeking to expand the scope of the proceedings to include other heritage sites in Delhi under various statutory authorities, including the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which allegedly suffer from a lack of proper upkeep.
The application alleged that conservation efforts in the Capital have been “ad hoc and cherry-picking” in nature.
It was submitted that several heritage monuments remain neglected and unprotected, and that the existing lists of such sites are outdated by more than a decade. The petitioner sought directions for a time-bound survey to assess the present condition of these properties.
Senior Advocate Gopal Shankarnarayan, the court-appointed commissioner, along with senior advocate Shikhil Shiv Suri, placed the application before the court. As per data cited, the ASI has 174 protected sites in Delhi, the government of NCT of Delhi has 554, the MCD controls 767 sites, and the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) has around 20 heritage properties.
Observing the absence of updated and consolidated information, the bench directed that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), Delhi Cantonment Board and the CPWD be impleaded as parties. Notices were issued to the newly added respondents.
Since January 21, 2025, the Supreme Court has passed multiple orders directing the DCWA to hand over possession of the Gumti to the Land & Development Office (L&DO), Ministry of Urban Affairs. The Court also directed the MCD to vacate the illegally occupied premises and imposed a cost of Rs 40 lakh on the DCWA for the restoration of the monument.
On May 14, the court was informed that the DCWA had handed over peaceful possession to the L&DO. However, the MCD allegedly vacated the site in a damaged condition, with garbage, broken walls and no electricity.
Subsequently, on July 23, the Court directed the MCD to clear the site completely and file necessary compliance reports, followed by directions on July 30 to maintain the park surrounding the Gumti in its original form.
The proceedings arose from a petition filed by Rajeev Suri seeking protection of the monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. In August 2024, the Court had ordered a preliminary inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the failure of the ASI and the Central Government to protect the site.
The inquiry revealed illegal occupation and unauthorised structural alterations by the DCWA. On November 14, 2024, the Supreme Court appointed heritage expert Swapna Liddle, former convener of INTACH (Delhi Chapter), to assess the damage caused to the structure and suggest measures for restoration.
The CBI inquiry revealed that the Gumti had been used as an office by the DCWA for nearly six decades, during which several unauthorised modifications were made, including construction of a washroom, installation of utilities, false ceilings and a parking shed. The matter remains under active consideration of the court.
