State allowed to build ponds on Rs 6,000 crore MRC land

Proposed eco-park will be part of integrated flood mitigation project, TN counsel tells HC
A division bench granted the relief while hearing appeal filed by the state against a single judge’s order that restrained it from going ahead with the project | file pic
A division bench granted the relief while hearing appeal filed by the state against a single judge’s order that restrained it from going ahead with the project | file picPhoto | Express
Updated on
1 min read

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Wednesday permitted the state government to continue with the works to create waterbodies at the Madras Race Club at Guindy in Chennai. A division bench comprising justices SM Subramaniam and Mohammed Shaffiq granted the relief while hearing an appeal filed by the state government against a single judge’s order that restrained the state from going ahead with the eco-park project.

The bench allowed the state government to use the 160 acre premises for strengthening and developing the ponds for aiding storage of water during the monsoon and other public-related project works.

Senior counsel P Wilson, representing the state, told the bench that the government recovered the land worth Rs 6,500 crore from MRC last year subsequent to the termination of the lease deed given to the Club.

He said the single judge, hearing a petition by the Club against the termination of the lease and resumption of land, had ordered status quo despite permitting the state to go ahead with the tenders for establishing an eco-park on the premises.

Wilson submitted that the eco-park project is designed as an integrated flood mitigation project involving creation of scientifically designed blue-green park so as to accommodate and store substantial amount of floodwater with a view to pre-empt areas from being flooded during the monsoon.

Senior counsel PH Pandian, appearing for MRC, objected to Justice Subramaniam being part of the bench since he had passed orders on a case relating to MRC. However, the bench did not accept his request for the judge’s recusal.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
Google Preferred source
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com