Ensure protection of waterbodies in Tiruvallur: Govt told

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court held that the classification of 13,720 hectares of land in the second master plan comprising 27 villages in the Tiruvallur district as a catchment area is unconstitutional and directed the State to consult experts to ensure the protection of waterbodies.

A division bench of Justice SS Sundar and N Senthil Kumar wrote that since the government has no proposal to acquire the land, the reservation of such a vast extent as a catchment area in the master plan and to treat the same as ‘No Development Zone’ is void while allowing a batch of petitions moved by two private companies.

The Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971, does not authorise the classification of a huge tract of land as a catchment area and declare the land as ‘No Development Zone’ without acquiring the same as contemplated, read the judgment. The State has permitted all types of developments within the area reserved as catchment areas quite contrary to the stand taken, the petitioner has only put up godowns which can be permitted even according to 2019 regulations. Hence, the lock, seal, and demolition order is liable to be quashed, wrote the bench. It is open to the State and Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) to revise the master plan taking note of this judgment and in the light of the recommendations in their final report strictly adhering to the provisions of the 1971 act, read the judgment.

The bench also permitted the State to consult experts and provide the necessary infrastructure to ensure the protection of waterbodies throughout the area where the jurisdiction of CMDA is extended and the supply of quality drinking water in sufficient quantity, wrote the bench.

The two private companies Global Waste Recyclers and B.T.Enterprises moved the petitions seeking to quash the lock, seal, and demolition notification. The petitioners had purchased two separate lands at Alamathi village, Sholavaram Panchayat in 2008 and constructed godowns for the companies after obtaining proper planning permission. However, in 2015 the CMDA claimed that the construction was unauthorised. Senior counsel P Wilson represented the petitioners and submitted that the 27 villages were reserved in the master plan as catchment areas and almost a major portion of this area is covered by construction, including government buildings, commercial buildings, schools, colleges, and petrol bunks. The rejection of the petitioner’s application on grounds that it is a catchment area is contrary to the

regulations, he added.