Mysuru: A four-member expert committee from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Roorkee visited the Lansdowne Building and Devaraja Market this morning to conduct a structural assessment and prepare a report for submission to the Supreme Court.

On Sept. 2, the Supreme Court directed IIT Roorkee to carry out a fresh evaluation of the two 19th-century heritage structures. The directive came while hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Karnataka Government’s decision to demolish and reconstruct both buildings, retaining only their facades.

The Court instructed IIT Roorkee to determine whether the buildings could be preserved through repairs and renovation rather than demolition.

The report is to be submitted in a sealed cover. To facilitate the assessment, Mysuru City Corporation (MCC) was ordered to deposit Rs. 5 lakh with the institute. In accordance with the directive, the Committee visited both sites.

The team comprised Prof. Umesh Kumar Sharma, Chairperson and Professor of Civil Engineering; Prof. Sanjay Chikermane, Professor of Civil Engineering; Prof. Ram Sateesh Pasupuleti, Associate Professor of Architecture and Planning and Prof. Manvi Suneja, Assistant Professor of Architecture and Planning. The Committee has been asked to submit its findings within eight weeks from Sept. 9.

The inspection was supported by MCC Executive Engineer Madhu.

At the Lansdowne Building, the team examined the front, rear, and side elevations, including collapsed sections. Samples of walls, plaster, foundation, and wood were collected for profiling and scientific analysis.

At Devaraja Market, the team conducted a comprehensive inspection of the premises, covering all sides, including Sayyaji Rao Road, Chikka Gadiyara, and Dhanvanthri Road. Material samples were similarly collected for testing.

The SLP challenges the Karnataka High Court’s order dated Aug. 8, 2023, which upheld the Government’s decision — based on an MCC resolution — to demolish and rebuild both structures.

Traders at Devaraja Market, concerned about loss of livelihood, had opposed the demolition and filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the High Court. After the PIL was dismissed, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court, which also sought detailed reports from INTACH and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).