Show no mercy, clear squatters from wetlands: HC

A division bench comprising Justice M Venugopal and Justice S Vaidyanathan while directing the Chairperson, TNSWA to ensure that there is no further encroachment and illegal constructions made on the wetlands, by way of periodical inspections, said, “This Court fixes the responsibility on the Chief Secretary and TNSWA and his/her team for survey and removal of encroachments on the wetlands and any negligence/lethargic attitude noticed shall be viewed seriously.”

“It is needless to state that in case of any encroachments on the wetlands, the initial step is to disconnect the Water Supply and Electricity supply by informing the Chairman, TNEB, Chennai and CMWSSB and any such other Authority supplying water and no Civil Court shall grant any interim order without invoking Order 18 Rule 18 of CPC (which provides for the legal leniency to the Court to personally inspect the property or thing in question and prepare a memorandum of such inspection, which can then be taken upon the records of the case matter) and the inspection needs to be video graphed and photographed,” the bench said.

The bench also directed the TNSWA to stop further constructions, if any carried out thereon on wetlands and relocate the buildings, if any constructed on the lands to some other permitted area within a period of one year and in that process, the authorities must ensure that the debris are removed from the lands properly without causing any damage to the adjacent lands.The other directions issued sought the Chief Secretary to convene a meeting with the Chairperson, TNSWA and other authorities once a month to review the action taken and assign a separate helpline/phone numbers district-wise to enable the public to contact them in case of any illegal encroachment, etc. on wetlands.

Further, the bench on holding that in case of dereliction of duties, the government is entitled to take suitable disciplinary action against the erring officials, said, “Though this Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to restore, protect and preserve the entire extents of “Back Water (Kazhuveli) lands” lying along the sides of Buckingham Canal in the Revenue District of Kancheepuram, in view of the fact that this petition is in the nature of ‘Public Interest Litigation’, whatever order passed herein-above is applicable to the entire State of Tamil Nadu.”

The Madras High Court while ruling out a blanket stay on provisions relating to ‘State Shelter fund’, wherein builders have to part with one per cent of the guide line value to finance housing projects to rehabilitate the urban poor, has granted an interim injunction restraining the authorities from making any demand for shelter charges as a condition for grant of approval for development of property by the builders.

A division bench comprising Justice S Manikumar and Justice Subramonium Prasad granted the interim stay on a batch of writ petitions moved by builders including Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd, Shri Rathna Akshaya Estates Private Ltd and Saravana Selvarathnam Pvt Ltd.

They had sought to declare Section 63D and 63E of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and Rule 34 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules 2019 imposing such shelter charges as arbitrary and illegal.

The bench in its order directed the petitioners to pay 50 per cent of the demand raised in the notices issued by the CMDA or the concerned development authority, as indicated in the statute. For the balance 50 per cent of the demand, the bench directed the petitioners to offer bank guarantee in the name of CMDA or the concerned planning authority, depending upon the area following which the authorities shall process the planning permission applications.

Senior Counsel ARL Sundaresan, appearing for the petitioners contended that the amount now directed to be paid as shelter fee is huge and that the petitioners are already burdened to pay other charges such as development charges, regularisation charges and Infrastructure and Amenities (I&A) charges.

Therefore, the further addition of huge amount under the shelter fee would burden them while there are statutes, which enable the government to acquire or declare a land as slum and to provide affordable housing to the poor and that the same is a governmental function, where expenditure has to be incurred from public fund, he said.

Countering this, Additional Government Pleader E Manoharan submitted that considering the overall cost of the project, one per cent of the guideline value to be paid as shelter fee will not be excessive. Moreover, the government is competent to bring legislation for levy of charges for contribution towards infrastructure as well as for providing affordable housing for poor in urban areas, wherever lands are converted into houses.

However, the bench also made it known in its interim order that “We are not inclinedto accept the submission of thepetitioners that there is no nexus to the object sought to achieved by the introduction of State Shelter Fund.”