Tamil Nadu Rejects Claims of Building Approval in Pallikaranai Wetland: Understanding the Reserve Forest Controversy

Tamil Nadu government has firmly rejected claims that it approved a multi-storeyed building project within the Pallikaranai Reserve Forest, an area reportedly part of Chennai's Ramsar-designated wetland site.

The Environment, Climate Change and Forest Department issued a comprehensive statement clarifying that "no building permission has been accorded in the protected area of the Pallikaranai Marsh Reserve Forest." They emphasized that the land in question consists of private patta lands situated outside the forest boundary.

The government's statement highlighted important distinctions between the Pallikaranai Marsh Reserve Forest, the Ramsar site, and the Wetland, noting these are three separate legal classifications.

According to officials, 698 hectares have been officially notified as Reserve Forest under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. However, an additional 550 hectares proposed under the Ramsar designation are still pending delineation. The "ground truthing" process to establish precise boundaries with specific survey numbers remains ongoing.

The government also revealed that in November last year, the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management, a central institution, was assigned the task of defining the Ramsar boundaries and developing an Integrated Management Plan.

"Since the notification process under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 is yet to be finalised, the Ramsar site boundaries are not yet legally defined," the department explained.

This clarification was prompted by allegations from Arappor Iyakkam, a non-profit organization, which claimed that approvals for a Rs 2,000-crore multi-storeyed project by a private company had been granted within the Ramsar site in Perumbakkam. The organization warned that such development could increase flood risks in nearby areas including Perumbakkam and Sholinganallur.

The government rejected these claims, stating that approvals were only granted for private patta lands outside the reserve forest. Officials insisted that "the allegations mentioned in the newspaper articles are not correct" and explained that Ramsar site limitations would only become effective after formal notification following public consultation.

In response to the government's statement, Arappor Iyakkam contended that the clarification had "raised more questions than answers" and maintained that it actually reinforced their allegations.

The non-profit argued that Ramsar-designated wetlands automatically fall under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, from the designation date, without requiring additional notification for the rules to apply.

They accused the government of demonstrating "no political will to save the marshlands" and claimed officials have been delaying the boundary delineation process for over three years.

The organization maintained that the disputed 14.7-acre site falls within the Ramsar boundary according to maps from both the State Wetland Authority and the CMDA. They demanded immediate cancellation of the project's environmental clearance and plan approval.

When approached by media earlier, the private company involved denied all allegations. They stated that the current owner has possessed the land for decades and that they have secured all necessary approvals and statutory clearances from relevant authorities.