Installation at Kanakakunnu Palace sparks outrage among nature lovers
Earlier, green activists had moved the High Court against implementing nightlife at Kanakakunnu Palace premises causing damage to the heritage grounds of the palace and the HC had issued a stay order halting the nightlife project. The existing High Court order restricts any kind of construction activities, hard landscaping, excavation, tree removal and demolition of structures within the compound and inside the historically significant palace.
'Kanakakunnu is an INTACH certified heritage property and nothing of this sort can be done inside it without the permission of the Arts and Heritage Commission. They have put up this huge installation close to the tree which I planted in 2022. Back to back events, and installations are causing damage to the trees and plants inside the premises,' said Asha Gopinathan, a green activist who took up the matter with the tourism department.
In response to the complaint, tourism director Shika Surendran said that the installation is connected with the inauguration of the Vizhinjam International Seaport project. She pointed out that the installations are temporary and are scheduled for removal immediately. She also made it clear that the installation was erected responsibly without causing any damage to the flora and fauna.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
40 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court protects daughters' right to live in father's house
The Bombay High Court has cancelled orders of the Satara trial court and the district appellate court that told three sisters to leave their late father's property. The High Court said their right to live in the house is protected under Hindu law. Justice Gauri Godse, deciding in favour of the sisters, said, 'Irrespective of whether Rama (father) died before or after 1956, the appellants, being daughters of Rama, had a right to his property. Before 1956, Rama or his heirs, who inherited his property, were bound to maintain the appellants, and on the death of Rama, they were entitled to be maintained out of his estate under a moral, though not a legal, obligation to maintain them. After the 1956 Act, Section 14 has improved their right of maintenance acquired before the 1956 Act, which has culminated in an absolute right. In view of Section 23 of the 1956 Act, the appellants had the right of residence in the dwelling house.' The land originally belonged to Natha, who had two sons — Rama and Chandar. In a family partition, the land went to Rama. Rama had three sons and three daughters. One of his sons, Laxman, was married to the woman who later took the matter to Court. She claimed that after another partition in 1966, this property went to her husband Laxman. She said Laxman had let his sisters stay in the house out of sympathy, but after his death, she ended this arrangement in 1986 and asked them to leave. The sisters said their father Rama had allowed them to live there for maintenance and that they had built the house with their own money. One sister, widowed in 1949, moved in while her father was alive. The other two, deserted by their husbands, joined her later — one of them in 1956 with her infant son. Two lower courts had agreed with the widow and ordered the sisters to leave, calling them 'gratuitous licensees' who had no permanent right to stay. Justice Godse found it 'unbelievable' that the widow's husband had given them permission to live there when one sister had already moved in before 1966, the year he got his share of the property. Quoting legal principles, the Judge observed, 'Pre-1956, unmarried daughters, widows or destitute daughters were entitled to be maintained by their father and reside in the father's property. Hence, in the present case, the right of the defendants to residence prior to 1956 would become an absolute right after the Act of 1956 came into force.' The Judge added, '...Under any contingency, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek possession from the appellants on the ground that they were gratuitous licensees and she terminated it.' The High Court said the sisters' right to live in the home 'needs to be protected' and cancelled the previous orders, dismissing the case to evict them.
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Indian Express
Petitioners appeal for controlled pigeon feeding amid closure of Kabutarkhanas across city
Amid the ongoing crackdown on pigeon feeding and closure of Kabutarkhanas across the city, the petitioners who have moved the Bombay High Court over the ban have written to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) seeking interim arrangements for pigeon feeding in a controlled manner. Writing to the BMC commissioner, Bhushan Gagrani, on August 10, the application has appealed for deployment of civic sanitation staffers to maintain hygiene while another has requested for regulated feeding for certain hours. The applications come along the heels of the Bombay High Court order which on August 7 permitted petitioners to apply to BMC if they intended to feed pigeons and directed BMC to hear applicants and all stakeholders before passing an appropriate decision considering 'larger issue of public health.' The HC said petitioners can file applications seeking vacating of earlier court orders. In the application filed on August 10, Pallavi Sachin Patil, animal rights activists, has appealed for immediate interim arrangements for uninterrupted feeding and watering of pigeons at their natural and habituated location ranging from existing kabutarkhanas, traditional feeding zones and other residential or public spaces where pigeons thrive. In a bid to ensure hygiene, the petitioner has called for pressing in sanitation contractors and municipal staffers to clean the feeding spots daily or at least thrice in a week. 'Designated signage or markings may be provided to regularize these locations and discourage opposition by ill-informed residents or members of the public,' further read the application. Meanwhile, another application by petitioner, Sneha Visaria, has requested permission for controlled feeding for staggered durations, each day. Suggesting three time slots between 7.30 am to 8.30 am, 12.00 pm to 1.00 pm and 4.00 pm to 5.00 pm, the petitioner has said that the feeding of pigeons will be carried out in a hygienic manner with cleanliness drive in the feeding spots after 6 pm. According to petitioners, at least 10 other request forms have also been submitted before the BMC on Tuesday, appealing for controlled feeding. Earlier in July, the BMC, acting on the directives issued by the state government, launched a city wide crackdown against illegal pigeon feeding by imposing a penalty of Rs. 500 against offenders. It was against this drive that three animal rights activists approached HC asking that the demolition of pigeon-feeding areas be stopped, and that citizens not be prevented from feeding the birds. However, the civic crackdown gathered steam after the High Court order issued on July 30 which directed the civic body to curb 'illegal' and 'defiant' feeding of pigeons in public areas over health concerns. The BMC move to shut feeding spots and penalise offenders has flared tempers amongst animal lovers as well as members of the Jain community, for whom feeding pigeons hold religious significance. The opposition culminated in a protest near Dadar Kabutarkhana on August 6 where crowds of hundreds clashed with the police to tear down the tarpaulin sheets. On August 7, the High Court recorded that since the BMC had not revoked or diluted its decision, the ban on feeding in public spaces 'very much stands'. Despite tensions, the BMC's action against illegal feeding birds has continued unabated with at least 3 FIRs filed against offenders and over Rs. 32,000 raked in fines between August 1 and August 11, alone. The next hearing is scheduled today (August 13), until which period the HC has directed that all earlier orders will continue in every respect. The court will hear the Advocate General for Maharashtra and other parties on the setting up of the committee today.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
Muslims can end marriage by verbal mutual consent: Gujarat high court
AHMEDABAD: Gujarat high court held that a Muslim marriage can be dissolved through Mubaraat, a mutual consent divorce, without the necessity of a written agreement recording such consent, reports Saeed Khan. Citing Quran and Hadith on the procedure for dissolution of marriage, the bench of justices A Y Kogje and N S Sanjay Gowda set aside an order by a Rajkot family court that rejected a suit filed by a Muslim couple seeking dissolution of marriage by Mubaraat. The family court had held the suit was not maintainable under Section 7 of Family Courts Act because there was no written agreement regarding mutual consent for divorce. The couple decided to separate due to marital discord. HC found error in the family court's findings that a written agreement is a must for divorce "as the same is not subscribed to any verse of Quran, Hadith, or the practice followed among Muslims under personal law."
