The primary objective of the Tamil Nadu Land Consolidation (for Special Projects) Act is to facilitate land consolidation for projects covering at least 100 hectares, particularly when such land includes water bodies, streams, or canals.
Published Nov 05, 2024 | 8:11 PM ⚊ Updated Nov 05, 2024 | 8:11 PM
The Bill mandated that any project on land with significant water resources, including streams or canals, must secure a “Special Project” permit from the government. (Tamil Nadu Wetlands Mission).
The Tamil Nadu Land Consolidation (for Special Projects) Act, 2023, passed in the state Assembly has run into troubled waters with environmentalists, local communities, and a section of politicians demanding the government withdraw it.
Revenue Minister Sattur Ramachandran introduced the bill in the Assembly on 21 April 2o23 and was passed by a voice vote, without a debate. The Bill subsequently got the governor’s assent.
Critics felt the hurry in passing the Bill was “undemocratic”. They want it to be withdrawn in the next Assembly session.
The primary objective of the Tamil Nadu Land Consolidation (for Special Projects) Act is to facilitate land consolidation for projects covering at least 100 hectares, particularly when such land includes water bodies, streams, or canals.
Designated for “Special Projects,” these lands would be used for commercial, infrastructure, and industrial developments. The Bill’s explanatory note underlined that land was critical for the state’s economic development, and claimed that any delay in consolidating land would hinder progress, leading to financial losses.
In essence, the Bill mandated that any project on land with significant water resources, including streams or canals, must secure a “Special Project” permit from the government. This permit required the applicants to assure authorities that their project would not impact water storage or the natural flow of these water resources.
If deemed essential, the government could declare a project “Special,” after which an expert committee would be formed to oversee the approval process.
The expert committee, comprising five members — four government officials and one environment expert — must conduct public hearings. On establishing a draft Land Consolidation Scheme, the government would review the scheme and publish it in the gazette.
Importantly, however, critics argued that the committee has no real authority to reject a project on environmental grounds: it can only approve the project, with riders, if necessary.
According to a report by the environmental activist group Poovulagunanbargal, the Bill was problematic for multiple reasons.
One environmental report suggested that the process was biased toward project approval, allowing limited scope to challenge a project on environmental grounds. Additionally, the bill lacked provisions that explicitly safeguard the ecological importance of water bodies, which serve as vital resources for agriculture, grazing, and habitats for diverse species.
Critics argued that water bodies were not isolated ecosystems but intricately connected with the surrounding landscapes. Any change in land use in these areas, they argued, could degrade the water bodies and undermine their environmental functions.
In a statement, the environmental activist group Friends of the Earth urged the government to withdraw the Bill, arguing that it contradicted the global commitment made during last year’s biodiversity summit to protect 30% of the earth’s land by 2030.
Furthermore, courts across India have issued orders emphasising the protection of water bodies, making the Bill appear to some as a step back for environmental preservation.
The Bill’s provisions also fuelled a controversy due to the potential conflicts of interest, particularly in the case of the proposed Parandur Airport project, planned to be developed over existing water bodies.
Critics alleged that projects like Parandur Airport were not primarily about infrastructure, but rather real estate ventures benefiting a select group.
Savukku Shankar, a commentator, said the project was to benefit people close to the ruling DMK.
I reiterate again. #ParanthurAirport project is a real estate project to benefit people close to DMK. The govt cleverly chose Dr Sudhakar as SP for Kanchipuram who scuttled media coverage for the locals agitation against the project. Till notification was issued to take… https://t.co/SN7qdreWyk
— Savukku Shankar (@SavukkuOfficial) November 4, 2024
Shankar and others argued that the government’s handling of the Parandur Airport, combined with the expedited approval process for the Land Consolidation Act, reflected an attempt to prioritise commercial interests at the expense of public resources.
According to a report, the legislation, passed without discussion in Tamil Nadu’s Legislative Assembly, aimed to fast-track approval processes for “Special Projects” deemed essential to the state’s development.
While the Bill required projects to demonstrate minimal disruption to water flow, environmental experts argued that it lacked specific protections for the ecological integrity of water bodies.
This has led to concerns that these ecosystems could face degradation under large-scale infrastructure projects, such as the controversial Parandur Airport.
The same report suggested that bypassing stricter environmental reviews for such large projects would set a concerning precedent.
Friends of the Earth contended that the Bill contradicted India’s biodiversity conservation goals, and the spirit of recent judicial rulings focused on water body protection.
Community members and political voices have also raised concerns over the Bill’s rushed passage, calling it an “anti-democratic” move that stifled public participation.
“The current airport infrastructure falls short of handling the increasing traffic efficiently, which causes congestion and raises issues for both residents and travelers. In this context, an additional airport project would indeed be beneficial, addressing the urgent need for expanded capacity and improved transit conditions,” Economist Nagappan Veliappan told South First.
“However, while there’s merit in the economic and logistical benefits of such development, it’s essential that the government balances this with a strong commitment to environmental sustainability,” he said.
Veliappan also said that the welfare of all stakeholders should be carefully considered, ensuring that vital environmental factors—such as groundwater depletion and ecological impacts—were not sacrificed purely for development. Ultimately, growth should be sustainable and should not come at an irreversible environmental cost.
G Subramanian, secretary of the Parandur airport opposition joint movement, felt the government had overlooked the ecological significance of the water bodies.
“Parandur is dotted with countless water bodies, yet the government seems to have overlooked the ecological significance of these lakes and streams. In discussions, MLA Selvaperunthagai conveyed to me that the state would take a more environmentally considerate approach. There was an assumption that the government would prioritise safeguarding these resources,” he told South First.
“Instead, we’re concerned that they’ll proceed with the airport project but may ultimately transfer the land to SIPCOT for industrial use. There are at least 12 lakes in the area, governed by strict rules and regulations, but the development plans here suggest that highways and other infrastructure are poised to cut through our villages,” Subramanian further said.
“How can such a development be beneficial to us when it risks displacing communities and disrupting local ecosystems? We are seeking intervention and help because we fear this will create more problems for us than it will solve,” he added.
Jayaram Venkatesan, a social activist and a convenor of an anti-corruption NGO Arappor Iyakkam said the Bill appeared to be in contravention of Supreme Court judgements.
“This bill seems to contradict previous Supreme Court judgments, which explicitly protect water bodies, regardless of whether they are actively in use or not. According to these rulings, even disused water bodies cannot be reclassified for other purposes,” he pointed out.
Jayaram raising serious concerns about the new legislation’s legality and commitment to environmental preservation.
“Such an act can be viewed as a breach of public trust, with the government stepping into a trustee role only to undermine the resources it’s supposed to protect for the people. This legislation requires judicial review to ensure that it aligns with environmental and legal standards, as it appears to disregard both community welfare and environmental stewardship,” he added.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
