Krishnagiri Municipality has given a nod to its own lessee to erect a tin-roofed cycle shed on the dry bed of Chinna Eri, an unrevived lake, abutting the Krishnagiri new bus stand, and the work was carried out in April during the Lok Sabha elections.
The shed, as an extension of Municipality’s two-wheeler stand, with tin sheets, asbestos roof propped up by a parapet of stone plunging into the unkempt lake is hinting at an encroachment on a water body by its custodians.
When contacted, the Assistant Executive Engineer of PWD(Water Resources Organisation) Arivoli said, Chinna Eri was under the control of Krishnagiri Municipality and the PWD had no control over it.
Chinna Eri, spread over 16 acres, was proposed to be rejuvenated at a cost of ₹ 3.36 crore by desilting and establishing facilities such as footpath, boat house among other features. However, after the preliminary works, the proposal was suspended during the pandemic. According to sources, the new bus stand, a department store and all other adjunct structures were all standing on the land that was once an extension of Chinna Eri. The same was acknowledged by the Commissioner of Krishnagiri Municipality, Stanly Babu.
The Hindu spoke to Mr. Babu on the apparent encroachment into the lake. “There is no boundary per se and all of this, where the bus stand, Municipality shops stand today was a water body say some 100 years ago,” said Mr. Babu.
Work under way to erect a cycle shed, as an extension of Krishnagiri Municipality’s two-wheeler stand, on the dry bed of Chinna Eri. | Photo Credit: BASHKARAN N
“No boundary was fixed when it was given – be it for the bus stand, or the Municipality’s two-wheeler shed or the shops (department store). The rear boundary had not been fixed. When I inquired, they (lessee) said, it was same area that was given to them but it was not used because there was water then, which has now dried up and hence the lessee wanted to put up the cycle shed,” Mr. Babu said.
Explaining his point, Mr. Babu said, “for example, if there was 60ft area behind, it was the same area 60 ft area now, only that there was water before and hence it was not used and now since the water had dried they said they (lessee) want to use it.”
Speaking to The Hindu, Jayaram Venkatesan, a public accountability and anti-corruption activist heading the organisation Arappor Iyakkam, pointed out that even if a water body is put into disuse, government cannot reclassify it for other purposes. Their job is to restore the water body. This is what several Supreme Court and High Court orders have said.
Asked if a local body can take refuge in the fact that original encroachment on a water body was made by the government itself many decades ago, and hence it can push boundaries of encroachment in an incremental manner, Mr. Jayaraman said “no, it cannot extend the boundary into the water body particularly after the Shanmugam vs State of Tamil Nadu after the 2015 floods of Chennai, and Hinch Lal Tiwari case orders of the Supreme Court.”
In the Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs Kamala Devi Case, the Supreme Court in 2019 held that ponds are public utility meant for common use and could not be allotted or commercialised.
In K.V. Shanmugam vs The State of Tamil Nadu, in the wake of Chennai floods, the Madras High Court taking note of the acute water scarcity, instructed the government to undertake “definitive measures to restore the already earmarked tanks, ponds and lakes to its original status as part of its rainwater harvesting scheme. In the same judgement, the Court also censured the authorities to “pretend to remove encroachments only in a selective manner.” Calling out encroachments resulting in the reduction of flood storing and carrying capacity of the water bodies, the court also categorially stated that it was beyond the power of the State to alienate or reclassify water bodies for some other purpose.
