Committee set up to study how residents are affected by Kanurmarg landfill
The division bench of justice GS Kulkarni and justice Arif Doctor was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) by Dayanand Stalin, director of NGO Vanashakti, challenging the civic body's move to expand the Kanjurmarg dumping ground. The bench appointed the principal secretary of the environment department, to lead the committee. It also directed the committee to brief the Urban Development Department (UDD) on creating a robust mechanism to identify suitable alternative dumping sites with modern amenities outside municipal areas.
The 142-hectare Kanjurmarg plot, adjoining the Thane Flamingo Bird Sanctuary, was first identified as a potential dumping ground after the Bombay High Court ordered the closure of the Chincholi Bunder landfill site in 2001, citing health concerns raised by affected resident associations. In 2011, the Supreme Court directed using half of the Kanjurmarg plot as a dumping ground and the remaining be kept as a no-development zone. While passing this order, the Supreme Court also directed strict observation of pollution-related laws.
The chief secretary of the environment department in 2009 claimed that the entire plot was a non-CRZ plot, as opposed to the observations of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) report claiming that at least 52 hectares of the plot fell under the Coastal Regulation Zone. An expert appraisal committee passed an environmental clearance in 2009 for the use of only 65.96 hectares as a dumping ground by an environmental clearance. A case challenging this clearance is pending before the high court, said the petition. Similarly, multiple clearances were granted for the project despite blatant violations of environmental norms.
Multiple reports by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority, and the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) cited several violations in the implementation of the dumping ground in 2011. 'Despite show cause notice being issued (after 2012) by the MoEF, the PP (project proponent) continued to encroach upon the CRZ areas,' the PIL stated. It added that a Bioreactor Landfill Facility was being operated on the plot despite the MPCB only sanctioning Windrows Composting
The petition further claimed that a fourth environmental clearance was granted by the State EIA Authority in October 2018 for expanding the existing projects, in terms of land use, without enhancing the capacity for treating solid waste. The clearance was granted despite the knowledge that the expansion would amount to encroachment on the Thane Flamingo Bird Sanctuary, the petition claims.
The court has scheduled the next hearing for July 22 to ensure compliance with its directions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 days ago
- The Hindu
Pipeline work near Buckingham Canal to begin next week to carry treated sewage from Sholinganallur STP
Work is set to begin next week to lay a pipeline near the Buckingham Canal to discharge treated wastewater following the recent Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance. The project will enable the safe disposal of sewage treated in Sholinganallur sewage treatment plant (STP). With projects being carried out to implement comprehensive sewerage schemes in merged areas of south Chennai, the project was an imperative to discharge treated sewage into the major waterway, according to Chennai Metrowater. The CRZ clearance for the pipeline from the Sholinganallur STP, which can treat 36 million litres of sewage a day (mld), was obtained as the alignment of the effluent pipeline largely falls into two different CRZ categories. After obtaining the recent mandatory clearance from the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the water agency plans to start work in a few days to lay the pipeline designed for a peak sewage flow of 81 mld. The Sholinganallur STP would receive and treat wastewater from 11 areas, including Kottivakkam, Uthandi, Sholinganallur, Injambakkam and Semmenchery, and release it into the Buckingham canal through the proposed pipeline. The Ministry's expert appraisal committee has recommended that Chennai Metrowater install a continuous effluent quality monitoring system at the discharge point and develop a comprehensive ecological management plan for the Buckingham Canal. Residents noted that the environmental norms must be followed strictly to reduce sewage pollution in the canal. The ongoing works to cover the localities with an underground drainage network must also be completed before Northeast monsoon to facilitate the relaying of roads. G. Sathish, a resident of Semmenchery, said, 'Work to clear vegetation in the canal is in progress. Samples must be collected regularly in the waterway and STP and compared for their quality. Treated water can be used for social forestry along the banks of the Buckingham Canal. Restoring the major waterway will help groundwater recharge and prevent seawater intrusion.' Officials of the Metrowater said sewer lorries also decanted nearly 4 mld of sewage in the Sholinganallur STP. While sewer connections are being provided in areas like Karapakkam and Sholinganallur, the work has recently been completed in Pallikaranai. Projects worth ₹813 crores are progressing in various other localities. Various quality parameters for treated sewage would be tested before conveying to the canal. The work to lay the pipeline near the canal would be completed in two months, officials said.
News18
3 days ago
- News18
'Receiver's Failure To Maintain Donor Not Grounds For Revocation': SC On Gift Deeds
Last Updated: The Supreme Court said emotional or moral expectations cannot substitute for express legal conditions in property transactions The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the failure of a donee or receiver to maintain the donor cannot, by itself, constitute valid grounds for revoking a gift deed under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, unless the right to revoke was expressly stipulated in the deed itself. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by J Radha Krishna, thereby affirming the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated November 15, 2012. The high court had upheld the validity of a gift deed executed in favour of the respondent, Pagadala Bharathi, who was described as the foster daughter of the donor, KVG Murthy. The principal question before the court was whether a gift deed could be revoked due to the alleged non-fulfilment of a promise by the donee to maintain the donor. The Supreme Court answered in the negative, holding that unless the deed contains an express condition reserving the right of revocation, no such unilateral cancellation is permissible. 'The failure of the donee to maintain the donor as undertaken by him in the document is not a contingency which could defeat the gift," the court observed. 'All that could be said is that the default of the donee in that behalf amounts to want of consideration." The bench emphasised that Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act expressly bars revocation of a gift deed on the ground of failure of consideration. It clarified that in such instances, the appropriate remedy lies in filing a separate claim for maintenance, and not in attempting to unilaterally revoke the gift deed. The dispute stemmed from a gift deed executed on January 10, 1986, by KVG Murthy in favour of Pagadala Bharathi. Subsequently, the donor attempted to cancel the deed through a cancellation document dated December 30, 1986, and later executed a will in favour of his nephew on September 30, 1992. The petitioner, Radha Krishna (the nephew), contended that the deed was not an absolute gift but more in the nature of a conditional settlement, requiring Bharathi to maintain the donor. He argued that the failure to fulfil this obligation rendered the cancellation valid. However, the high court had already rejected this claim, holding that the evidence showed no binding legal condition, only a mere expectation or moral obligation that the donee would care for the donor. Agreeing with this view, the Supreme Court ruled that the findings of the high court were consistent with the legal principles governing gifts and were neither perverse nor based on a misreading of the statutory framework. 'It is not open to a settlor to revoke a settlement at his will and pleasure," the court remarked. 'Revocation must be based on legally sustainable grounds and effected through due process of law." Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act allows for revocation of a gift only under certain conditions: If the gift is subject to a condition that is expressly stated in the deed; And if such condition relates to the happening of an event that is not dependent on the will of the donor. In the absence of such express conditions or stipulations, a gift deed, once executed and accepted, cannot be revoked merely on grounds such as emotional expectations or failure of maintenance. 'In our considered view, the findings remained unimpeachable from the evidence led by the parties," the bench noted. 'It cannot be said that the same are in any manner perverse or based on incorrect reading, application, or interpretation of the statute." With no substantial question of law arising in the matter, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the high court's decision, harping on the fact that emotional or moral expectations cannot substitute for express legal conditions in property transactions, and that Section 126 TPA requires strict compliance for any revocation to hold ground. First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Hindustan Times
15k students pass on first choice college in FYJC CAP round 1
Mumbai: Around 15,190 students have not sought college admissions despite being allotted their first-choice college during the First-Year Junior College (FYJC) online first round of the centralised admission process (CAP). As per the rule, these students will not be allowed to apply for admissions in the second round and will have to wait for the third round. In total, there are 2,123,720 available seats across colleges, of which 1,670,598 are available for the CAP round. (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO) Out of the 139,943 students allotted colleges in the CAP first round, 68,927 have taken admission in various colleges of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) as the FYJC admission process is underway in 9,435 colleges of the state. In total, there are 2,123,720 available seats across colleges, of which 1,670,598 are available for the CAP round. The state education department announced the first merit list for CAP admissions on June 28. Students who were allotted seats in colleges had until July 7 to complete the admission process. Those who were allotted their first-choice college had to confirm the admission within the deadline, and would lose the seat if they failed to do so. Of the total confirmed admissions in the first round, 2.35 million students opted for science, making it the most popular choice of stream among students this year. With 1.17 millions admissions, the arts stream came next followed by commerce courses at 79,000 confirmed applications so far. This year's admission process got off to a delayed start due to a series of technical glitches and logistical hurdles. An officer from the education department said, 'Further FYJC admission processes will be streamlined.' As per the department, 10 new junior colleges from Palghar, Raigad, and Navi Mumbai will be registered in the MMR for the second round of admissions.
