Court put brakes on lake privatisation

Court put brakes on lake privatisation

Staff Reporter

LDA restrained from entering into fresh agreement with companies

Developers told not to take up further work in the lakes

Government asked about steps needed to maintain lakes and gardens

BANGALORE: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday restrained the Lake Development Authority (LDA) “from entering into any fresh agreement with companies to develop any lake in the State” and also obtained an undertaking from three developers that they shall not make any further development in Hebbal, Nagwara and Agaram lakes, all water bodies in Bangalore.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran and Justice V.G. Sabhahit passed the order on public interest litigation (PIL) petitions by Environment Support Group (ESG) and Leo Saldanha who had challenged the LDA action in handing over to private developers the three lakes.

While the Hebbal lake was handed over to East India Hotels Group, Biota Natural Systems was given Agaram and Lumbini Gardens the Nagwara lake.

The petitioners had questioned the legal framework under which the privatisation of these lakes was taken up. They said the State set up the LDA on July 10, 2002 to protect the existing water bodies but had unilaterally decided to privatise some of the lakes and tanks around Bangalore to benefit hoteliers and builders.

While some builders had constructed buildings adjacent to the lakes leased to them, others started dredging operations without the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board’s permission. The petitioners urged the court to stay the notifications relating to the privatisation of the lakes.

When the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) said its consent was not taken before the lakes were privatised, the Bench sought to know how the Government could ignore the report of the KSPCB and Forest Department and go ahead with the privatisation of the lakes.

The Bench asked the Government advocate to inform the court on the steps needed to be taken by it to maintain the lakes and gardens so that commercial activities could be avoided.

Expressing its anguish over the manner in which the lakes were privatised, it orally asked why the have-nots should be deprived of their rights to enjoy nature.