Now Reading
NGT panel imposes a 14 crore environment compensation for a builder who has violated norms

NGT panel imposes a 14 crore environment compensation for a builder who has violated norms

A joint committee established by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), assessed an environment compensation of 14.9 million for a builder who has illegally constructed in violation of environmental norms and caused damage to the environment.

The Southern Bench of Jain Housing and Construction Limited has received a report by the committee regarding the construction of Tufnell Gardens in Kakkanad. The court asked the committee to determine whether the builder had the required environmental clearance and other permits for the construction of the project.

Vishnu Raj (Sub Collector, Fort Kochi) was the chairman of the committee and submitted its report on December 10. It was created by the tribunal in response to a Thiruvananthapuram petition alleging violations of norms during the construction of the building complex.

According to the committee report, the builder began construction activities without obtaining environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change. It was found that the project did not have an environment clearance. The project proponent had to get a new environmental clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Kerala) before starting any additional work.

The entire construction was completed without the consent of the State Pollution Control Boards. Occupancy was started without consent from the board. This violated the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981, and Environment Protection Act of 1986.

See Also

Paddy land was used to build without permission from the Local Level Monitoring Committee or Revenue Divisional Office. According to the report, conversion of agricultural land caused disruptions in the area’s ecological structure and adversely affected its biological diversity.

The company’s senior representative refused to comment on the matter, but stated that the matter was under judice. He said that it was a false and motivated case that the firm would be able to defend.

View Comments (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.