MUMBAI, May 10 -- The Bombay high court on Friday directed the state government to clarify its stand on granting heritage status to Savarkar Sadan, the erstwhile residence of Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in Shivaji Park. The direction was issued while the division bench of justices AS Chandurkar and Dr Neela Gokhale was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by self-proclaimed public policy think tank Abhinav Bharat Congress. The PIL, filed in view of the imminent razing of the building for a redevelopment project, seeks heritage status and "monument of national importance" tag for the building, alongside a special compensation policy for its inhabitants. On Friday, Abhinav Bharat Congress representative Pankaj Phadnis submitted a letter to the court issued by the deputy municipal architect of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation in 2012. The letter stated that the under-secretary of the urban development had in 2009 approved a proposal to include Savarkar Sadan in the heritage list and a notice was accordingly issued inviting suggestions and objections from the public. The proposal was then sent to the principal secretary, the letter stated, although no notification was issued thereafter. As reported by HT on May 5, Savarkar Sadan, which houses a mini museum dedicated to Savarkar on the ground floor, may be razed as some property owners are in talks with a builder for redeveloping the property. Two adjacent plots are likely to be amalgamated for the redevelopment project - one houses Laxmi Sadan, where renowned classical vocalist Pandit Jitendra Abhisheki once resided, while the other faces the Shivaji Park. The petition cited the HT report, stating, "...the petitioner was startled to see a report in a prominent newspaper about imminent demolition of Savarkar Sadan quoting three reliable sources." It refers to the high court's directions to the BMC in October 2008 to decide on heritage status for Savarkar Sadan within 12 weeks. The Heritage Conservation Committee also recommended the same, the petition notes, stating, "It is ironic that 17 years later, the same argument has to be repeated." While passing the order on the petition on Friday, the court said, "The status of the said property shall not be changed and the position as prevailing today shall be maintained."...