The Madras High Court on Tuesday called for a report from the State government explaining the circumstances under which it had reportedly permitted Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (TNSCB) to construct 1,200 tenements under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana on a wetland situated close to Buckingham Canal at Tiruvottiyur in Chennai.
A Division Bench of Justices M. Sathyanarayanan and P. Rajamanickam sought the details on a public interest litigation petition filed by Ashok Leyland Paniyalargal Kudiyirupu Paguthiyil Vasipor Munnetra Nala Sangam, an association of residents of a locality situated around house sites developed for former employees of Ashok Leyland.
The petitioner’s counsel R.D. Ashok Kumar brought it to the notice of the court that the erstwhile employees of the private firm had formed a housing society and developed house sites on 10.17 acres of land at A. Ramasamy Mudaliar Nagar in west Tiruvottiyur which was a low lying area compared to the eastern side of the locality.
Residents of the locality had learnt a “very hard and costly” lesson during the 2015 floods when their houses on the western side got submerged up to the first floor. Then, the damage would have been much higher if not for the 42.82 hectares of Kazhuveli Poromboke land situated within a distance of 100 metres from the Buckingham canal.
It was the Kazhuveli land that helped in holding much of the rainwater and draining it slowly into the canal. Hence, the residents were very much interested in preserving the wetland but to their shock, the TNSCB and its contractors had suddenly begun to level the land for construction of 1,200 tenements under the PMAY scheme, he claimed.
Subsequent inquiries made by the petitioner association revealed that a government order had been issued way back in 2005 for using the wetland for construction of houses for fishermen affected due to tsunami. However, that order was not given effect to all these years and was now being used to justify construction of houses under the PMAY.
Contending that the GO was illegal since it provides for conversion of a wet land into a house site, the association urged the court to quash the GO. It also sought for a consequential direction to the government authorities to restore the wet land into its natural state after undoing all efforts that had already been taken to bring the low lying land to ground level.
After going through the documents submitted in support of the PIL petition, the judges wondered how could construction be allowed within 10 metres from the Buckingham canal. They said, constructing houses in such close proximity would only pave way for encroachments on the canal and resultant law and order problems that may arise during eviction.
Ends
