NGT asks govt to get forest nod or demolish Deomali structures
1
2
Koraput: National Green Tribunal (NGT) has directed the state govt to obtain forest clearance within three months or remove all structures built on Deomali hill under the eco-tourism project.
The order, issued on Friday, mandates the state to seek approval from the Centre under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. If the govt fails to get the nod, it must dismantle the constructions and restore the land to its original state, the NGT said.
Deomali hill, located in Koraput's Pottangi block, has rich biodiversity. NGT's directive comes in response to a 2023 petition by the
Wildlife Society of Odisha
, which raised concerns over unauthorised constructions threatening the local ecosystem.
The forest department has built 10 cottages, a dining hall, dormitories and other facilities on 5.93 hectares of forest land using cement fibre board. NGT also directed the govt to maintain a pine plantation undertaken over 1.5–2 hectares and make efforts to expand it.
Strictly prohibiting diversion of forest land for other purposes, NGT's east zone bench in Kolkata cited the 1980 Act and Forest Rights Act, 2006. "In any case, no diversion of the land in question shall be made for non-forestry purposes and the respondents shall ensure strict compliance of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 read with the Forest Rights Act, 2006," the bench stated in its order.
Divisional forest officer (Koraput), Bhaskar Rao, said, "We are examining the NGT order which we received on Friday. After consultation with authorities and legal experts, necessary action will be taken."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
8 hours ago
- Hans India
Centre defends OCI cancellation in HC
New Delhi: The Centre has defended in the Delhi High Court its decision to cancel the OCI card of US-based journalist Raphael Satter saying he maligned Indian institutions in the international arena through journalistic activities. The Centre said it was satisfied that Satter conducted journalistic activities without waiting for necessary permission and violated the government's notification and that a 'discreet' lookout circular (LOC) was opened against him. 'It has been reported by security agencies that Raphael has been noted for acts of maliciously creating adverse and biased opinions against Indian institutions in the international arena through his journalistic activities and a discreet LOC was opened against him,' the Ministry of Home Affairs said in an affidavit. The Centre said that his revision petition was as a result disposed of and a speaking order dated May 24, 2024 held that there were no grounds to revise the overseas citizen of India (OCI) cancellation order. The Union ministry's affidavit came in response to Satter's plea against the cancellation of his OCI card. Justice Sachin Datta, who is hearing the matter, granted liberty to Satter to file a rejoinder to the government's reply and posted the hearing on August 25. Satter obtained the OCI status through his marriage and claimed he visited India for family purposes. The Ministry said it was brought to its notice through security agencies that Satter had attended Nullcon conference in Goa in September 2022 and the focus of the conference was to showcase the next generation of offensive and defensive security technology. Without necessary permission, he attended the conference and conducted journalistic activities, therefore, violating the provision of the ministry's notification, it said. OCI card holders or other foreigners visiting India, it said, were supposed to adhere to the laws of the country, meaning, the activities they are prohibited from under the category of visa or OCI guidelines. 'An OCI cardholder is a foreigner and OCI card is a life-long visa issued to such a foreigner. Every country has a sovereign right to refuse entry into its territory to any individual whom it may consider undesirable and informing about the same inasmuch as entry into any country's territory is not a matter of right, even if the person holds a valid visa,' the affidavit said. Citizens of India, the government said, were guaranteed fundamental right of speech and free movement, but foreigners or citizens of other countries were not entitled to such rights. Since OCI card holders are foreigners and citizens of another country, they cannot claim the right to free speech, movement and protest under the Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, the ministry added. It came on record that before initiating cancellation of the OCI proceedings, the ministry consulted security agencies and also the Ministry of External Affairs. After examining the petitioner's activities, his OCI card was found liable to be cancelled. 'Therefore, on June 12, 2023, this ministry (MHA) served a 'notice' to the petitioner through the High Commission of India in Washington DC to showcause as to why his OCI card may not be reports received from security agencies are 'secret' in nature, therefore, it cannot be disclosed to the petitioner,' the affidavit said. Though Satter submitted his reply to the ministry notice, the government claimed, he did not submit documents to establish he did not carry out any journalistic activity aside from showing his whereabouts and activities during his India visit. The MHA, however, said the reports received from the security agencies and the MEA provided 'enough inputs' indicating he had 'willfully violated' the provision of the 2021 notification. Satter, in his revision petition filed in January, 2024 before the MHA under the Citizenship Act, challenged his OCI cancellation order of December 4, 2023. On April 23, 2024 he claimed of not having carried out any journalistic activity, but the ministry claimed otherwise.
Hindustan Times
10 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
No wildlife rescue centre in Gurugram even a year after RTI flags crisis
More than a year after an urgent Right to Information (RTI) request exposed the absence of an approved wildlife treatment and rescue centre in Gurugram, the situation remains unchanged, sparking concern among conservationists and legal activists. The continuing lack of infrastructure is being seen as a serious threat to the district's wild species, including those protected under Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA). Filed under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act—which deals with matters of 'life and liberty'—the plea had sought details on available wildlife rescue facilities and accountability for previous wildlife deaths caused by inadequate care. In its January 9, 2024, response, the divisional wildlife officer, Gurugram, admitted, 'Presently no approved treatment/rescue centre is working under this division.' However, no steps have been taken since then to create one. 'There is still no new facility, veterinary staff, or even a designated location,' said Vaishali Rana, wildlife volunteer and trustee of the Aravallis Bachao Citizens Movement. 'One year after this RTI laid bare the state's failure, absolutely nothing has changed on the ground.' The RTI also highlighted the absence of trained veterinary specialists and emergency protocols for treating injured or ill wild animals—particularly Schedule I species such as langurs, Indian peafowl, and monitor lizards. Though the department claimed 'proper treatment' is provided when complaints arise, activists say this vague assurance fails to address the core problem. 'Gurugram needs a fully equipped, government-recognised wildlife rescue and rehabilitation centre with round-the-clock care,' Rana added. Forest department officials, requesting anonymity said that current rescue efforts rely on ad-hoc arrangements, with injured wildlife often transported by guards or volunteers to clinics unfit for wild species. The RTI response was forwarded to senior authorities in Panchkula, including the Chief Wildlife Warden, but no follow-up directives have been made public. Advocate Chander Saharan, who filed the RTI, called the inaction 'deeply disappointing' and warned it could expose the state to liability under wildlife protection and cruelty laws. Conservationists are now preparing to approach the state human rights Commission and the National Green Tribunal.
Time of India
17 hours ago
- Time of India
Only state can decide on declaring Samanatham tank as sanctuary: HC
Madurai: Madras high court on Wednesday observed that it is for the state govt to take a decision to declare Samanatham tank in Thiruparankundram in Madurai district as a bird sanctuary. A division bench of justice S M Subramaniam and justice A D Maria Clete observed that no doubt bird migration activities are going on in Samanatham tank. However, such decisions have to be taken by the govt on the recommendation of the competent authorities and after obtaining reports from the experts. The declaration of a tank as a sanctuary requires certain procedures to be followed under the Statute and Rules in force. The court, not being an expert body, cannot substitute the expert views. Therefore, the court may not be in a position to issue a positive direction to declare the tank as a sanctuary. The court is of the considered view that the authorities may take note of the facts reiterated by the division bench while initiating the suo motu proceedings and, if necessary, process the same in the manner known to law, the judges observed. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trending in in 2025: Local network access control [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo The court passed the order while disposing of a suo motu proceeding seeking a direction to the state to declare Samanatham tank as a bird sanctuary in terms of Section 18 of the Wildlife Protection Act. The tank is presently under the control and maintenance of the public works department (PWD). The waterbody provides habitat for more than 150 species of birds. The tank also provides habitat for two vulnerable species, namely the Indian spotted eagle and great spotted eagle. Owing to the biodiversity and, in particular, the unique natural bird habitat, there were various appeals to protect the tank by declaring it as a bird sanctuary. The action is necessitated in light of the fact that the waterbody is vulnerable to poaching, loss of natural habitat, and is easily accessible to the public, which gravely threatens the natural habitat of these birds. If the said waterbody is declared as a sanctuary, it would be subjected to restrictions as to entry in terms of Section 27 of the Act and various other protective measures as envisaged under Chapter IV of the Act of 1972, as a protected area. Earlier, a public interest litigation was filed by R Manibarahti seeking a direction to the govt to declare the tank as a bird sanctuary. The court closed the petition after the state submitted that a proposal was sent in this regard to the govt.
