top of page
Search

Does Heritage Status Of Buildings Hamper Development in Vidarbha?

Heritage buildings and modern infrastructure side by side in Nagpur city
Illustration of Heritage era building and contemporary construction equipment seen together near a central Nagpur public space

In Vidarbha, arguments over heritage protection and urban growth often play out in courtrooms, municipal meetings and protest sites rather than only in planning documents.


Historic buildings and precincts give cities identity and tourism potential, yet they also attract layers of regulation that can slow or reshape construction plans.


Developers public agencies and residents frequently clash over what should be conserved and what can be altered in the name of infrastructure jobs or housing.

The same heritage notification that unlocks funds for restoration can also bring legal scrutiny, height limits and restrictions on new roads or parking facilities.


The region’s recent disputes show that heritage status does not simply block development but pushes it into a more negotiated and legally intensive space.


Rules That Link Heritage And Development

Modern heritage protection in Maharashtra works through overlapping layers of law and planning control. At the national level, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act bars most new construction hoardings and parking within the premises of centrally protected monuments.


For city level structures, Development Plans and Model Heritage Regulations allow municipal corporations and their Heritage Conservation Committees to list buildings, grade them and decide what kind of additions or redevelopment may be allowed.

Nagpur’s own planning history reflects these instruments on the ground. A revised Development Plan identified eleven monuments for conservation in the late twentieth century, while a later notification in 2003 listed 138 heritage buildings and conservation areas in the city.


Independent documentation by heritage groups suggests that the real number of significant structures and precincts is higher than what appears in statutory lists. The grading system matters because Grade I structures are usually treated as needing careful preservation with very limited scope for structural change. At the same time, Grade II and Grade III buildings may accommodate more adaptive reuse.


Heritage status also changes the process that any developer or public body must follow before starting work.

For listed buildings and precincts, proposals often require approval from the municipal Heritage Conservation Committee in addition to standard planning permissions. Where a monument is nationally protected, or lies within a fort or temple complex, clearances from the Archaeological Survey of India or the state archaeology department can be mandatory for amenities such as toilets, shops, parking or approach roads.


Each extra layer of approval can lengthen timelines and increase the risk that a project will stall over incomplete paperwork or conflicting interpretations of rules.


When Heritage Status Slows Or Redirects Projects


The Old High Court Building in Nagpur illustrates how central protection can constrain even routine changes in use.


The structure, dating back roughly 120 years, was eventually notified in 2018 as the city’s first centrally protected monument of national importance after a long administrative process.

Around the same time, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court ordered the demolition of an unused canteen block within the premises to create additional parking space for lawyers and litigants.


Archaeological Survey of India officials later challenged this in higher courts, citing the national law that prohibits new parking and additional construction within such protected premises. Conservation of the main building has since been entangled in legal disputes over what kind of supporting infrastructure is permissible.


A different kind of friction appears when potential heritage sites are not formally listed for long periods.


In Nagpur, activists fought for over a decade and a half to secure heritage status for forty nine buildings, rivers and open spaces that had initially been considered for inclusion in the city’s first heritage list but were later omitted.


During this prolonged legal and consultative process, nine of those sites either collapsed or were demolished, including parts of old city gateways, tanks and pavilions. When the Heritage Conservation Committee’s subcommittee ultimately declined to recommend any of the remaining forty sites for heritage status, campaigners alleged that an opportunity to anchor more sensitive development had been lost.


The Futala Lake area shows how heritage ecology and big-budget projects intersect. Telangkhedi Tank, constructed in the late eighteenth century, figures in the city’s heritage documents and is surrounded by a green belt known as Bharat Van that residents value as an informal urban forest.

Around 2020, a package of works backed by Central Road Fund money and other allocations supported a multi-crore beautification and tourism project at the lake led by the metro rail agency and other public bodies. Plans included a long covered viewing gallery with thousands of seats, a multi-level parking plaza and a new cement concrete road running behind the gallery.


As construction advanced, citizen groups raised objections on environmental and heritage grounds. One campaign against the proposed road to the lake highlighted that more than seven hundred trees, including about two hundred fully grown ones, were likely to be felled in Bharat Van, which activists considered part of the wider heritage setting of the water body.

Thousands of residents and students formed a human chain in 2019, and public interest litigation in the High Court led to a stay on tree felling.


The High Court also took up a separate suo motu case regarding the road and warned the municipal corporation against allowing any cutting of trees in the area.


Eventually, the municipal corporation informed the court that it had cancelled permission for the new road, and the metro agency dropped the idea of building that stretch amid sustained opposition.


A senior legal advisor associated with the case described the road as “unwarranted” and argued that it would lead to “irreparable loss” of green cover that formed part of the city’s natural heritage. Later hearings on construction in and around the lake reached the Supreme Court, where petitions questioned whether the project complied with environmental and heritage norms.


For years, large parts of the redeveloped zone remained closed as different courts examined whether multi-storey parking structures, floating platforms and planned shows near the lake bed were compatible with the character of the historic water body.


Similar tensions appear at the Ramtek temple complex in Nagpur district, one of the region’s most prominent religious heritage clusters.


The state government approved nearly fifty crore rupees worth of works under a dedicated temple heritage corridor covering amenities such as toilets, shops, parking, footpaths and grand entrance gates.


While some components moved ahead, others stalled because they did not comply with forest and archaeological regulations that govern the ancient fort temple area. Officials from the public works department were asked to resubmit proposals with full documentation so that no objection certificates could be obtained from the archaeology authorities. In the meantime, planned access improvements and commercial facilities around the heritage precinct remained on paper.


Across Vidarbha, Futala and Ramtek are not isolated examples. Academic work on Nagpur’s old city notes that many Gond and Bhonsale era structures lie in dense traffic corridors where any road widening or junction redesign is complicated by their heritage value.

Researchers highlight that private ownership of palaces and wadas makes conservation difficult, yet any attempt to redevelop the plots must negotiate additional oversight because of their heritage significance.


In some cases, such as the Bhonsala palace and nearby religious complexes, inappropriate commercial uses and unsympathetic alterations have already altered the built fabric, while more systematic conservation has lagged.


How Heritage Listing Can Support Development


If heritage status sometimes blocks or redirects particular projects, it also opens doors to other kinds of development.


One clear way is access to specialised funding for conservation and tourism infrastructure. When Nagpur’s Heritage Conservation Committee discussed giving heritage status to modern structures like Deekshabhoomi and Dragon Palace, members explicitly framed the move as a way to secure funds for conservation and for visitor facilities.

A senior architect associated with the committee argued that identifying modern buildings with historical or design significance would help preserve them and frame policy for their upkeep. The same meeting gave in principle approval to the metro rail agency for building a station pathway and related works within the precinct of Kasturchand Park, a Grade I heritage open space, subject to clearances from the district administration.


Supporters of such decisions present them as examples of heritage and infrastructure coexisting when handled through formal channels.


Municipal documents show that the reconstituted Heritage Committee under the Unified Development Control and Promotion Rules has the power to approve development, redevelopment, and repairs in listed structures and heritage precincts.


It can also vet projects of cultural and tourism importance within designated heritage areas and specify conditions for modification. Officials involved in these processes often argue that committee oversight provides a structured route for projects that claim to enhance access or facilities, whether for religious pilgrims, daily commuters or tourists.


Renovation decisions for Nagpur’s Town Hall, Kasturchand Park pavilion and the Zero Mile Stone illustrate how heritage status can trigger much-needed maintenance and public investment.


All three sites appear in the city’s heritage list and had pending proposals for repairs or restoration for years. At Zero Mile, a Grade I monument that marks a survey benchmark, a public interest case before the High Court eventually led the district administration to release funds for repairs and beautification after a decade of inaction.


A separate proposal envisioned improvements to damage caused by weather and neglect, though a plan to involve a builders’ association in funding work in return for adjoining land did not proceed because it clashed with rules for dealing with heritage property.


In Town Hall’s case, some engineers and heritage observers worried that plans for a new, bigger hall at the same site could result in demolition of the old structure. Committee deliberations instead pointed towards renovation and integration rather than outright replacement, with heritage status offering a degree of protection during design debates.


Advocates of this approach argue that upgraded civic halls and open spaces can host more events and visitors without erasing their architectural character. Officials connected with these projects stress that restoring iconic places such as Kasturchand Park or Zero Mile is not only about nostalgia but also about making central urban spaces safer and more attractive for everyday use.


The broader policy environment recognises heritage as an economic asset within city development.

National and state documents on tourism and heritage management describe conservation projects as foundations for jobs in guiding, hospitality, crafts and cultural programming. Even though central schemes like the Heritage City Development and Augmentation Yojana did not include Nagpur or other major centres in the region, later attempts at state-backed temple corridors and lakefront upgrades drew on similar ideas of combining heritage conservation with upgraded visitor infrastructure.


Planners and consultants often argue that if heritage sites are neglected or structurally unsafe, they can themselves become obstacles to nearby investment, whereas sensitive conservation can stabilise neighbourhood property values and encourage small business activity.


At street level, some heritage mansions and religious complexes have already been adapted for modern uses within planning rules.


Chitnavis Wada in the old city is a Grade II structure that still retains wooden pillars, courtyards and painted walls while being used for cultural events and visits.


Its maintenance involves negotiation between private owners, conservation specialists and municipal norms, but it also brings visitors into the historic core and supports local service providers.


Cases like this are often cited by conservation advocates to show that heritage listing need not fossilise buildings but can guide their reuse in ways that add to the city’s social and economic life.


A Continuing Balancing Act


The region’s experience shows that heritage status and development are locked in an ongoing negotiation rather than a simple winner and loser equation.


Citizen groups, conservation experts, municipal engineers and project agencies all use heritage laws and listings to press their arguments, whether to protect trees, secure access roads, prevent demolitions or unlock funding for ambitious schemes.


Residents who join human chains at Bharat Van or sign petitions about Kasturchand Park often express concern that short-term projects could damage irreplaceable sites, while some business voices complain about what they see as lengthy approvals and uncertainty around heritage clearances.


Vidarbha’s recent court cases and committee decisions suggest that neither unregulated construction nor blanket preservation can claim the upper hand for long. Where projects like the Futala road clashed with perceptions of ecological and heritage value, sustained public opposition and judicial scrutiny forced a rollback.


In other situations, such as the Ramtek heritage corridor or repairs to Zero Mile heritage status has served as a framework to channel public money into safeguarding old structures while adding basic facilities for visitors.


The outcome on the ground often depends on how well different departments coordinate, how clearly project designs respond to conservation norms and how actively local communities stay involved in monitoring change.


Looking ahead, planning documents for Nagpur and neighbouring cities point to the need for updated heritage lists, clearer grading based on values and more capacity within municipal institutions to assess development proposals that touch sensitive sites.


Conservation advocates argue that without timely listing and maintenance, important structures may decay or be demolished before any protection is in place.

On the other hand, urban planners warn that rigid controls without meaningful engagement with residents and investors can push development to the urban fringe or into informal channels.


For now, the record from lakefronts, temple towns and civic precincts across the region underlines that heritage status changes the terms on which development happens rather than stopping it altogether.


FAQs


Q. How does heritage status of buildings affect new development projects in Nagpur?

A. Heritage status usually means that any new construction, demolition or major alteration in and around a listed building must obtain clearance from the municipal Heritage Conservation Committee and, in some cases, archaeology authorities. This can lengthen approval timelines and may require design changes to protect architectural features or sightlines, though it can also open access to specialised conservation funds and tourism-related investments.


Q. Why have some heritage related development projects around Futala Lake faced legal challenges?

A. Projects around Futala Lake, including a proposed road through Bharat Van and large viewing galleries, have drawn legal challenges over tree felling, environmental impact and compatibility with the lake’s heritage character. Courts have issued stays or status quo orders at various points and citizen groups argue that certain components risk long term harm to an important historic water body while agencies contend they are part of planned beautification and tourism infrastructure.


Q. Can heritage listing support economic development in Nagpur and nearby temple towns?

A. Heritage listing can support economic development when it is linked to well designed conservation visitor amenities and cultural programming that attract tourists and pilgrims while protecting core structures. Examples include temple corridor plans at Ramtek and renovation driven investments at Zero Mile and Kasturchand Park, though their progress depends on clear documentation, regulatory compliance and sustained public funding.


References



 

Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet
Add a rating

About the Author

Pranay Arya is the founder and editor of The News Dirt, an independent journalism platform focused on ground-level reporting across Vidarbha. He has authored 800+ research-based articles covering public issues, regional history, infrastructure, governance, and socio-economic developments, building one of the region’s most extensive digital knowledge archives.

bottom of page