|  | 
                    
                      |  |  
                      |  |  |  |  |  
                      |  |  |  
                      |  |  |  
                      |  |  |  
                      |  | 
 |  
                      |  |  |  
                      |  | Background |  
                      |  |  |  
                      |  | The wetlands in the Maradu  panchayat disappeared due to urbanization. Study sponsored by Centre for  Development Studies in the early 2000 shows that the area of the wetlands  decreased from 1238 acres in 1970 to 300 acres in 2003. Petitioners,  Ramesh J. Tharkan and Arundhati Nayar, residents of Konthuruthy,  are pursuing profession as Architects. They are occupying independent  residential buildings in a serene and picturesque surrounding, facing the  backwaters. The written petition is filed espousing public interest, as  according to them, indiscriminate and illegal reclamation and encroachment of  Kayal lands has taken place in the adjoining Maradu Panchayat and other vantage  points. The PIL was filed in the High Court of Kerala in 2003 against the state  of Kerala and others. The judgment was passed in the year 2007 whereby the  court has directed the authorities to monitor the activities of unauthorized  constructions, encroachment or reclamation as required under the statute and  come to prevent it by employing appropriate service as the situation might  demand. |  
                      |  |  |  |  |  
                      |  |  |  |  |  
                      |  |  |  |  |  
                      |  | 
 |  |  |  
                      |  | Links |  |  |  
                      |  |  |  |  |  
                      |  |  |  |  |  
                      |  | CHRONOLOGY |  |  |  
                      |  |  |  |  |  
                      |  | 1991: The Ministry of Environment and Forests had  issued a notification on 19-02-1991- the coastal areas could not be reclaimed  except for permitted activities and it is submitted that the named authorities  have a duty for enforcement of the regulations. Expert committee was  constituted and subsequent modifications were done in 1994 and 1997. 
 2002: The chief engineer of Thiruvanthapuram on  26-11-2002 submitted that the reclamation of the wetlands was necessitated due  to lack of space available for the buses to turn back for return trip on the  Nettoor-Panangad route.
 
 2003: Studies showed that from 1238 acres in 1970,  the wetlands reduced to 300 acres in 2003.On the opposite bank of the  backwaters, the petitioners could see during June, very hectic activities, and  truck loads of sand and gravel were being dumped night and day. They had  thereupon alerted the district administration, police authorities, Corporation  of Cochin and the Gram Panchayat about the reclamation process.
 
 2003: The filling up  for bus terminal on the wetlands of the Maradu panchayat was carried out at the  north end of Nettoor and it was almost completed during July 2003. Stacking of  rubble and dumping was also carried out for side protection of reclaimed land.
 
 2003: On 01-07-2003, the petitioners, who are  residents of Konthuruthy filed a petition in the High Court of Kerala against  illegal construction in coastal areas. The court had directed the respondents to ensure that further  reclamation activities are stopped. Village Officer on 04-07-2003 had issued a  letter to the Secretary of the Maradu Gram Panchayat requesting to stop any  further works.
 
 The counter affidavit filed by the  third respondent--Panchayat dated 26-09-2003 shows that the reclamation was not  carried out on the instructions of the Panchayat. Their own enquiry revealed  that the reclamation work is undertaken as included in the budget work of the  state government. It was for the purpose of formulating a bus terminal. Though  5 buses were plying on the route, for want of parking facilities buses were not  reaching the terminal. It was on the basis of the representations submitted by  the local public and the panchayat member, that the government had sanctioned  the widening of the PWD road, including construction of the terminal. The  panchayat had nothing to do with those works. The superintending engineer,  central circle, PWD Aluva had called for tenders for the above work, and the  panchayat had no hand in any reclamation.
 
 2005: An affidavit was filed by  the second petitioner dated 30-05-2005. It stated that it can be seen from the  counter affidavit of the Panchayat that was reported by the tahsildar 3 per  cent of Kayal Puramboke land was reclaimed. As a matter of fact, about 12 per  cent of land would have been reclaimed earlier and at the time of filing the  affidavit an additional 10 to 15 per cent would had been reclaimed.
 
 2006: A  statement filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Sub Division,  Ernakulam on 06-11-2006. It was submitted that the reclamation was necessitated  due to lack of space available for the buses to turn back for return trip on  the Nettoor-Panangad route and the administrative sanction for the work was  obtained from the Chief Engineer, Thiruvananthapuram on 26-11-2002.
 
 2006: The court  directed the learned District Collector, Ernakulam to give a report as to how much  of land would be necessarily required for turning of the buses where  reclamation of backwaters had already been done. The report was directed to be  filed within three weeks from the day of hearing.
 
 A report was filed by the  District Collector dated 01-12-2006. Reportedly the Assistant Executive  Engineer and the Motor Vehicle Inspector had conducted a joint inspection and  the total land required for terminal area for use of stage carriages was  assessed as 21.201 per cent.
 
 2006: The  petitioners, after the above order, have filed an affidavit on 15-12-2006  pointing out that the affidavit filed by the 5th respondent dated 12-08-2003  would indicate that only 3 per cent of Kayal alone had been reclaimed, but the  subsequent reports showed that larger areas had been reclaimed. It had also  been submitted that private parties adjoining the reclamation site have  reclaimed ‘an area of more than 1 to 2 acres or more’.
 
 2006: In the  affidavit filed by the 5th respondent-- Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Cochi,  it had been pleaded that they were not authorities under the Coastal Zone  Regulations. Hence it may not be possible for them to take any action on the  complaint lodged.
 
 2007: Judgment given. No person  would be entitled to violate the laws of the land. The authorities were  directed to monitor the activities of unauthorized constructions, encroachment  or reclamation as required under the statute and was asked to come to prevent  it by employing appropriate service as the situation might demand.
 
 |  |  |  
                      |  |  |  |  |  
                      |  |  |  |  |  
                      |  |  |  |  |  
                      |  | 
 |  |  |  
                      |  |  |  |  |  
                      |  | PEOPLE |  |  |  
                      |  | Ramesh Tharakan,
 Design combines
 Architects & Designers,
 Arcadia
 Kusumagiri,
 Kakkanad
 Kochi-682030
 ph: +91-4842421731
 |  |  |  
                      |  |  |  |  |  
                      |  | Advocate: 
 Bechu Kurian Thomas.
 +91-9447076076
 bechu@vsnl.com
 |  |  |  
                      |  |  |  |  |  
                      |  |  |  |  |  |