The Supreme Court has stayed the operation of an Uttarakhand High Court order that had cleared the way for the demolition of the historic Mansaram Building on Rajpur Road near the Clock Tower in Dehradun. The petitioner has alleged that despite the apex court’s order, demolition work continued at the site.
Historical Significance
A long-standing example of Art Deco architecture, the building was commissioned in the early 1930s by Seth Mansaram, a prominent banker in the region. It is regarded as Dehradun’s first multi-storey commercial structure. Completed in 1940 alongside the establishment of Mansaram Bank, its design drew inspiration from Delhi’s Connaught Place, with architects brought in from Mumbai.
Soon after its completion, Mansaram is believed to have gone bankrupt, following which the property was taken over by his loan agency and later sold to LIC. At its peak, the building housed over 100 shops and became a landmark symbolising Dehradun’s transition to multi-storey commercial development. Its balconies offered a direct view of the Clock Tower, making it a familiar sight for generations.
Legal Battle and Demolition Order
In recent years, concerns were raised about the building’s structural safety. LIC declared it to be in a dilapidated condition and at risk of collapse. In December, the Uttarakhand High Court permitted its demolition, following which work commenced. The matter reached the Supreme Court in a special leave petition titled Saket Bhamri vs State of Uttarakhand & Ors. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while hearing the plea, stayed the effect and operation of the High Court’s April 17 order.
On April 17, the High Court had declined to interfere with the municipal corporation’s decision to demolish the structure, observing that the municipal commissioner had concluded, based on material on record, that the building was dilapidated and liable to collapse at any moment. The court had stated: “This Court is not inclined to substitute its own judgment for the opinion formed by the Municipal Commissioner, which is based on reports submitted by engineers, as those engineers are experts in their respective fields. Although the petitioner relies on a report obtained from a private engineer or valuer, such a private report cannot be relied upon to set aside the impugned order, given that the said order is grounded in the reports submitted by the Municipal Corporation’s engineers.”
Supreme Court Proceedings
As per Supreme Court proceedings dated April 21, the Bench issued notice in the petition, returnable within six weeks. It clarified that no fresh notice was required to be issued to respondent M/s Tirupati Associates, as its counsel had already entered appearance on caveat. Notices were directed to be issued to the remaining respondents, including the state government, municipal corporation, Central Building Research Institute, and MDDA. Counsel for Tirupati Associates was granted four weeks to file a counter affidavit, with the petitioner allowed two weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder, if any.
Allegations of Pressure
The petitioner, Saket Bhamri, has alleged that he has been subjected to pressure to sell the property. Sources said a private builder has acquired approximately 5 bighas of land behind the building, following which attempts were made to create pressure to vacate the premises. He has further alleged that complaints were filed with the intention of having the building declared dilapidated.
The petitioner also stated that repairs had been carried out in the past and claimed that demolition work continued on Tuesday despite the Supreme Court’s stay. Mayor Saurabh Thapliyal said he was not aware of the issue and added that the municipal corporation would look into the complaint.
