NGT reserves orders on new RTO near Pallikaranai marsh

Government counsel says area is assignable revenue land

Chennai 30/11/2015 : Pallikaranai Marsh in its destiny. This Photograph taken on November 29, 2015 shows the marsh is in its drained stage . Chennai corporation deepened the channel in Okium Thoraipakkam where the Marsh opens to the sea which resulted the marsh got drained even in this heavy monsoon. When marsh land become dried it will be perilous situation for millions of migratory birds being visited in this marshland through out the year. After Chennai corporation started using the Marsh as dumping yard and a sewage disposal zone, ground water in entire area bacome highly polluted and brackish. still nature does its cleaning process by flushing it out by rain and flood . Pallikaranai Marsh has been encroached its majour parts by NIOT, MRTS, Chennai Corporation, local people and politicians. All they wanted is the area to be dried off for their further encroachment and activities. Photo Shaju John

The southern bench of the National Green Tribunal has reserved orders on an application claiming an RTO was being set up on the Pallikaranai marsh and would be used to dump vehicles.

The matter came up for hearing before the bench of Justice M.S. Nambiar and expert member P.S. Rao on Friday.

Counsel for the applicant argued that the land was abutting the Buckingham Canal and would obstruct the free flow of water during the monsoon.

Ban on any activity

He also argued that a government order had termed it as ‘kaluveli’ or backwaters and had banned any activity on such areas.

However, counsel for the State government said the word was a generic one, that meant wetlands, and in this instance, the seven acres land allotted for the Sholinganallur RTO was a wetland.

The State government has allotted Rs. 1.86 crore for the RTO building.

“This is basically a wetland and has no connection with the Pallikaranai marsh. It is not even an extension of the marsh. Wetlands are either assessed waste land or agriculture land. It is an assignable revenue land,” counsel for the State informed the Court.

He also submitted that the Public Works Department had built a wall to enable free flow of water and there was an empty land next to it which extends to 50 metres, and the RTO land starts only after a further 100 metres, and there was no question of it encroaching upon the space meant for the water flow.

When counsel for the applicant insisted that the area was backwaters, both the judge and the State government counsel pointed out that it was located quite far from the sea and could not be backwaters.

Following the conclusion of arguments, which at one point became heated, the bench reserved orders.