File photo of Karnataka's Forest, Ecology and Environment Minister Eshwar Khandre.
Credit: DH Photo
The Union environment ministry has taken exception to a submission of a proposal for forest land diversion which was rejected earlier, noting that submitting such proposals without justification will go against the interest of the conservation.
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change had in 2022 rejected a proposal by the Sidramappa Danigond Memorial Trust for diversion of 1.2 acre of forest land in Terdal. The land was sought for constructing a road to connect to the state highway (Kudachi Road) with its institution about 300 metres away.
The trust stated that widening the road was necessary to connect 12 institutions which had a total of about 3, 000 students. However, the ministry rejected the proposal and raised questions about the legality of the existing road.
‘Road is already in existence’
“It is observed that as per satellite imagery, the proposed road is already in existence and therefore, it is not clear whether the state government has given any permission,” the ministry said .
Further, the Assistant Inspector General of Forests of the ministry noted that there were multiple access roads connecting the building. Moreover, the ministry noted the diverting forest land for one entity could result in right of way complications to the other entities beyond applicants land.
“The state government may review the entire issue and deal with the access provisions comprehensively, including the one proposed in the instant proposal,” it said.
However, last month, the state government forwarded another proposal by the trust last month. This time, the land required was reduced to 0.5 acre. However, the ministry questioned the move.
‘Proposal resubmitted’
“This office had already rejected the similar proposal of the same (trust). However, despite the rejection of the said proposal, the state government has resubmitted the proposal without proper justification,” it said.
The ministry also underscored the state government’s failure to provide information on the legality of the existing road. It noted that the “issues raised in earlier rejection letters” were not furnished and said the new proposal has also been rejected.
An activist noted that the state government blindly forwarding the proposals without answering pertinent questions on legality raised by the Union ministry was a cause for concern. “Action should be taken against officials who are responsible for such lapses,” he said.