Shahid Alam, 15, a Class 10 student, is worried. He has to pay ₹50 for a tennis ball to his group of street-cricket players. “This is the second time the ball has gone missing in the jungle. We can’t go inside as it is locked,” says Alam, who regularly plays cricket on the rough ground outside Imambara Shah Najaf in Lucknow. The forest he is referring to is the wild bushes around Qadam Rasool, a nearby monument built by Nasir-ud-din Haider, the second king of Awadh. It was constructed in the 19th century on the banks of river Gomti and is now almost crumbling.
Lucknowi Vineet Kumar, who is visiting Imambara Shah Najaf, says, “There should be a beautiful garden here. The tragedy of Lucknow is that we are not able to save the monuments. Now children have started calling this historical place a jungle.” The Imambara was built by Ghazi-ud-din Haider, the first king of Awadh, who built the Imambara as a symbol of his devotion to Hazrat Ali, who was the son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad. Replica of Hazrat Ali’s Dargah in Iraq.
Also read: Highest number of encroachments on centrally protected monuments recorded in Uttar Pradesh by 2022
A March 2026 report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India documented the Centrally Protected Monuments (CPMs) of Uttar Pradesh, which are sites under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The 2024 report said that of the 487 CPMs in the state, 31 were unearthed, only 31 monuments (6.4%) had “proper ownership documents”, and 96 monuments were encroached upon. There were also CMPs that had been neglected, many in need of structural change, and some bearing the consequences of “inappropriate conservation work”.
The work of removing debris and leveling the land is going on in Bada Imambara in Lucknow. | Photo courtesy: Sandeep Saxena
Allahabad High Court lawyer Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi, who is also a heritage enthusiast, says many people working in conservation are deeply concerned. Rizvi says, “The CAG report is a formal indictment of institutional failure. 31 monuments have gone missing in UP, and yet the ASI keeps them in its official list. This means that the government agency entrusted with our heritage cannot even trace what it claims to preserve.” He says that not having ownership documents is like a guardian not having a deed to the property he protects.
In addition to intensifying judicial intervention, heritage groups are also considering a public awareness campaign. Rizvi has filed public interest litigations (PILs) in the Allahabad High Court regarding encroachment on heritage sites and demanded their removal.
Sanobar Haider, associate professor of history under the department of higher education in UP, says Awadhi architecture developed in the areas under the nawabs, who came from Persia in the 18th century: roughly the areas of Lucknow, Ayodhya, Kanpur and Barabanki. Now, Awadhi culture can be seen most easily in architecture, where Persian influence is visible, such as in structures such as the Bada Imambara, Chhota Imambara, Rumi Darwaza and the Residency. “They reflect the Persian architectural vocabulary: arched iwans, elaborate stucco work, geometric tile patterns and calligraphic inscriptions. The Chhota Imambara, also known as the Palace of Lights, combines Persian mausoleum design with Lucknowi ornamentation of glass workWhich is illuminated on Moharram. The Rumi Darwaza, based on the Sublime Porte in Istanbul, reflects the Awadhi court’s extensive Persian and Ottoman ties, the historian says.
The concern is not just about buildings. Conservationists believe that without dedicated initiatives from the government to protect and restore the sites, not only will the monuments disappear, but the entire Awadhi culture will also be destroyed over time. Culture is a joint heritage manners (refined etiquette), first you (After you), and the fine arts of food, Kathak, Chikankari, and Urdu poetry, with its collective heritage of constructed form.
Shah Najaf Imambara Memorial in Lucknow. | Photo courtesy: Sandeep Saxena
Inheritance crisis in UP
ASI is a central government agency responsible for the protection and maintenance of monuments and archaeological sites declared of national importance. Its activities include survey of archaeological remains in the country, exploration and excavation of archaeological sites, archaeological research, maintenance, conservation and protection of protected monuments.
Unnao resident Umakant Mishra is writing letters to the authorities to remove encroachers at memorial sites in Lucknow and Agra. He says there is a fear among heritage conservationists that there is a “quiet, insidious practice of delisting monuments on the grounds that they have lost their national significance”. “It is used as a tool to highlight safety failures when carelessness goes too far,” he says.
The monuments which have been removed from the protected list after 2024 include Kadam Rasool, Begum Kothi, Imambara Ghulam Hussain Khan and Chhota Chhatar Manzil of Lucknow, considered symbols of Awadhi civilization.
There have been instances of government structures such as hospitals, police stations, municipal offices, schools and other departments reportedly setting up offices within the CPM without legal clearance or ASI authorization in several districts of UP.
Mishra says, “The old Rohilla fort in Saharanpur is under the control of the district jail. Hussainabad Baradari in Lucknow has been taken over by everyone from the electricity department to the Jal Nigam because it has no boundary wall.”
Similarly, a small temple has been built on the preserved monument at Bhankour Kund in Mathura, which has Sanskrit inscriptions. Mishra says that Nagar Panchayat Barsana had constructed structures and toilet blocks in prohibited and regulated areas and the construction material was stored by the Nagar Panchayat contractor by staking them on pillars.
Chhota Imambara in Lucknow is occupied by illegal shops, eateries and carts. | Photo courtesy: Sandeep Saxena
During physical verification, the CAG team found that the ASI itself was not complying with the provisions at Rani Mahal in Jhansi. “The circle office of ASI Jhansi was located in a centrally protected monument. They made changes to the structure of the monument, such as air conditioners, electrical fittings, water pipes, etc. Toilets were built with ceramic tiles in the monuments. These changes were not in keeping with the original character of these monuments,” the CAG report said.
protect the vulnerable
The Nawab of Awadh was from Naishapur in Iran and was Shia by faith. After the disintegration of the Mughal Empire in the late 18th century, Awadh, especially its new capital Lucknow, developed a distinct identity under Nawab Asaf ud Daulah. He was the builder Nawab who contributed immensely to the architecture of the city and made the city a cultural centre.
In Lucknow, the tomb of Mohammed Ali Shah (Chhota Imambara), which was declared a protected monument by gazette notification in 1920, has been encroached upon by shop owners at the gates, heritage activists say.
“Shops were allotted to the local people in Chhota Imambara by the more than 200-year-old Hussainabad and Allied Trust, but they have given it to different people in violation of the allotment conditions. They have also encroached on the common areas,” says Rizvi. The Trust is the custodian of Awadhi culture.
The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, prohibits any person from engaging in activities that may cause damage to a protected heritage structure. Nor can any construction work be carried out to construct any building within the protected area. This will be considered encroachment.
Hussainabad Gate near Chhota Imambara in Lucknow needs urgent repairs. | Photo courtesy: Sandeep Saxena
Wahid Ahmed runs an eatery in the Chhota Imambara complex. He says his family has been running this place for three generations. He is unaware that documents are required to run his shop there. “There are dozens of people like me in this place,” he says.
The ASI, in its guidelines issued in January 2005 regarding the use of specific areas within protected monuments, stated that permission to organize cultural events in these areas can be granted only if the local ASI circle is completely satisfied that the event will not cause any damage to the monument.
To safeguard the Diwan-i-Aam at Agra Fort, the Superintending Archaeologist of Agra Circle requested the Director General of ASI to initiate structural analysis by a qualified agency in February 2023. He had suggested that access to this interior space in the fort should be restricted to visitors under Rule 4 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules of 1959. It was also requested not to allow large scale events within the grounds of the memorial.
The CAG audit said permission was still given to organize an event to commemorate the birth anniversary of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj on February 19, 2023, in the backdrop of Diwan-e-Aam, Agra Fort.
Two days after this incident, the Superintending Archaeologist once again recommended that the Diwan-e-Aam be removed from the CPM’s list where cultural programs can be authorized. Nevertheless, the monument continues to be included in the list. “This indicates that events were organized without paying attention to security concerns and increased the risk of damage to the monuments,” the CAG report states.
Demand for better laws and enforcement
“The existing central framework is inadequate, poorly implemented and suffers from definitional deficiencies,” says Rizvi. He further said, “We need a state heritage law with clear demarcation, mandatory digitization timelines, anti-encroachment provisions and citizen complaint mechanism.”
The National Policy for the Conservation of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains, 2014, outlines professional standards and establishes an evidence-based framework for contemporary conservation. The entire conservation process should be documented before, during and after conservation efforts through maps, sketches, photographs, digital records and field notes to ensure the creation of a continuous record of interventions.
Plans should be developed and implemented for the short-term (up to two years), mid-term (two to five years), and long-term (five years and beyond) to prevent any further deterioration of the structures, which may require extensive conservation work in the future.
Additionally, a Site Management Plan (SMP) should be prepared for the monuments, which should be prepared by a multidisciplinary team of professionals in consultation with archaeological officials of the ASI.
The findings of the CAG report revealed that planning and documentation were inadequate, resulting in conservation efforts that were fragmented and incomplete. It found that the ASI circle in UP had not prepared any mid-term or long-term plan for the preservation and conservation of the monuments. No SMP was prepared by the boards for conservation of monuments.
“It’s almost as if we’re waiting to see the monuments disappear in front of us,” says Mishra.
ASI’s Lucknow Circle did not give any reply Hindu’s List of emailed questions.
