The Meghalaya High Court has expressed dissatisfaction with a “knee-jerk reaction” by the State government to the public interest litigation (PIL) pending in the court regarding protection of Umiam Lake and nearby water bodies.
It may be mentioned that a notification has been issued by the State government on February 22, 2022 declaring the Umiam Lake and its surrounding areas as a wetland and prohibiting any construction of permanent nature, except for boat jetties, within 50 metres from the mean high flood level of the Umiam Lake in Ri Bhoi District.
“However, such notification leaves a lot to be desired, particularly since all the land covered by the Umiam Lake and the surrounding areas, which may go underwater seasonally, have not been appropriately described or demarcated,” the division bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh said today.
However, the State government Advocate General Amit Kumar informed the court that the task of demarcating the land and to precisely indicate the same has been left to the committee which has been recently constituted by the government.
On this the High Court said that before the exercise is completed by the committee and the same is formalised by the State government, it is imperative that the government and the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) to be vigilant to ensure that there is no construction of any nature within 50 metres from the mean high flood level of the Umiam Lake on all sides.
To this, senior counsel of KHADC Vivan Kynta told the court that the Meghalaya Town and Country Planning Act, 1973 are not applicable to the areas under the control of the District Councils and that the District Councils enjoy a level of freedom on how land use may be permitted or regulated.
The High Court however refused to buy the arguments of the KHADC counsel. “Whatever may be the case, no District Council, irrespective of the authority that it possesses, has a right to allow the destruction of the environment or the wanton use of land without imposing reasonable restrictions to ensure that the environment and ecology remain undisturbed. If the autonomous councils fail in such regard and appropriate rules are not put in place or they are not reasonably interpreted, it may call for greater interference by the court in such regard,” the division bench said.
Ordering that copies of this order be circulated to all autonomous District Councils for immediate appropriate action, the High Court said, “It is the submission of the State that in terms of paragraph 12A of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, the State Act holds primacy over the laws that may be made by the autonomous councils. This aspect of the matter may be required to be addressed later in course of these proceedings.” The matter has been list for another hearing on April 7.
