Properties in Gurugram
CHENNAI: The portion of live marsh within Pallikaranai may not exist for long, because of plans to develop it into another urban area, but not according to the anti-corruption NGO, Arappor Iyakkam.
This NGO that has carved out a reputation for itself fighting corruption has lodged a strong petition against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay. Their demand is quite clear: revoke the permissions granted to the real estate developer, Brigade, who wants to construct a housing project in Perumbakkam. The reason for their demand? The housing project lies right within the Pallikaranai Marshland, which is a protected area.
A Project on Forbidden Ground
The disputed land area includes survey numbers 453, 495/2C, 496, 497, and 498 of Perumbakkam village, Chengalpet district. As claimed by the organisation, Arappor Iyakkam, all the above survey numbers fall under the area covered by Pallikaranai marsh, a Ramsar site of international importance.
In its petition addressed to the chief minister, Arappor Iyakkam alleged that the company was attempting to revive the construction process in contravention of the “Wetland Conservation Rules 2017 and Supreme Court order not to construct within wetland maps.”
Why does this matter? It is a specific allegation of violation of both national regulations on wetlands and an order of the apex court in the country.
Why Pallikaranai Matters
Pallikaranai is not an ordinary marshland. It is listed among the 94 wetlands selected under the National Wetland Conservation and Management Programme in India. The fresh water marsh which changes into saline in the monsoons acts like a natural sponge and absorbs floodwaters of Chennai and Chengalpet.
If the wetland is stripped away, there goes one of the natural barriers of Chennai against the rains in the monsoon season. This is the issue that Arappor Iyakkam is trying to press upon the government.
The Question of Who Knew
For the petitioners, the strictest scrutiny is reserved for the agencies that approved the project. From the information provided by the NGO, CMDA and SEIAA gave their approvals without ever considering that the proposed site is an eco-sensitive wetland area.
However, there’s another accusation. It appears that the project proponent never disclosed the Ramsar site’s status of the proposed site at the environmental clearances stage – if this is the case, then all the subsequent approvals must have been influenced by this fact.
Join The Discussion