The Gujarat High Court expressed on Tuesday that numerous properties dating back to the British era are still present today, but it cautioned against categorizing all of them as heritage structures.

During a hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) aimed at safeguarding the 121-year-old Pushpakoot, the former residence of Indian cricketer Vijay Hazare, Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayee, who were presiding over the bench, made this observation.

The court pointed out that the petitioner trust did not conduct any research or provide evidence to establish that the bungalow where Hazare lived for almost four decades held the status of a heritage structure or was protected under the Gujarat Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1965.

The court reprimanded the petitioner trust for relying on a "newspaper report" as its basis for approaching the court, wherein the report had mentioned that the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) was considering the demolition of the said structure.

Chief Justice Agarwal conveyed to the petitioner's counsel that they had not undertaken any substantial research efforts. She emphasized that if their goal was genuinely to preserve such properties, it should be treated as a widespread movement rather than simply making a few representations to the authorities, which would be insufficient.

The court's observation came about when the Bench recognized that the petitioner had taken no action to protect the mentioned structure before the news report emerged, suggesting its impending demolition. Subsequently, the court continued to make its observations, “You cannot ask the government to declare someone's property as a heritage one. There are many properties which were constructed in the year 1800 and before. Every property cannot be declared a heritage one. There is a procedure for it.”

The Bench also inquired whether there was any documentation of the structure in question in historical books or if it held any significant historical value. Unfortunately, the counsel representing the petitioner was unable to provide clear answers to these inquiries.

The Chief Justice emphasized that they wouldn't instruct on how to handle this matter, pointing out that there are numerous properties dating back to the British era, some of which are over 200 years old. However, she stressed that not every property automatically qualifies as a heritage property.

The Bench decided to postpone the matter until October 4 to allow the petitioners sufficient time to present the required material as part of the official record.