National Green Tribunal
Yelahanka Puttenahalli Lake And Bird ... vs State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025
Item No.12:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]
Original Application No. 191 of 2024 (SZ)&
I.A. Nos. 71 & 164 of 2024 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Yelahanka Puttenahalli Lake and Bird
Conservation Trust (Regd.)
...Applicant(s)
Versus
State of Karnataka and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 02.05.2025.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde.
For Respondent(s): Mr. K.M. Darpan for R1, R3, R4, R6 to R8.
Mr. T.V. Sekar for R2.
Mr. S.S. Rajesh for R9.
Mr. G. Krishnakumar for R10.
Official Present: Mr. K.N. Rajiv, Chief Engineer,
Projects, BWSSB.
Mr. C. Narayanswami, Addl. Chief Engineer,
Projects, BWSSB.
Page 1 of 4
ORDER
1. Pursuant to our order dated 24.04.2025, Mr. K.N. Rajiv, Chief Engineer of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) has appeared before us today and explained in great detail that as per the decision taken by the Committee headed by the Chairman - BWSSB, it has been proposed to collect the sewage that is being generated in the upstream through a network of underground lines which will be outside the Rajakaluve from Athur Lake to the point where it drains into the Puttenahalli Lake and in the stretches where walkway has already been constructed, the underground sewer line is proposed beneath the walkway. Instead of manholes, the sewer lines will be provided with machine holes that will not let any sewage spill over outside the sewer line, even if it is submerged.
2. It was also explained that, in this particular stretch, there is a natural slope and construction of buildings in the private layouts has commenced just on the border of the walkway. As a result, the proposed sewer line for a stretch of 600 meters has to be positioned only underneath the existing walkway, which is in the land classified as 'Tank'.
3. For the query of the Tribunal as to why cannot a collection tank be constructed and sewage pumped by laying a sewer line outside the proposed area, it was categorically stated that there is no land and only as a compulsion, the said alignment has been chosen, which Page 2 of 4 falls within the survey number classified as 'Tank', but where the walkway has been laid long back.
4. Therefore, they have requested that in order to ensure that sewage does not enter into Puttenahalli Lake during the ensuing monsoon they have to be permitted to commence the work at once by modifying the order, wherein stay has been granted even against the construction of the sewer line in the impugned 600 Meter stretch.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant was asked to suggest if there was any alternate route. The alternate route proposed by them, cuts the lake into two. It was fairly conceded by the applicant that there is no other option, except by cutting the lake into two.
6. In view of the urgency to ensure that sewage is not let into the Puttenahalli Bird Conservation Reserve and Lake, during ensuing monsoon, the order passed by this Tribunal which stayed the construction of the sewer line in the impugned 600-meter stretch is modified and the authorities are permitted to construct sewer line in the 600- meter stretch.
7. The BWSSB shall also ensure that the network of sewer lines proposed in the residential area is also completed and sewage does not enter the Rajakaluve. With reference to laying of hume pipes in the Rajakaluve, the stay order continues.
Page 3 of 48. However, it is clarified that the availability of alternate land will be examined in the main application and therefore, the BWSSB cannot claim equity for the canal proposed in the impugned stretch.
9. During the hearing, the Chief Engineer of BWSSB reported that he had inspected the STP of Respondent No.10 and found it was not operating properly. In response, the learned counsel for Respondent No.10 stated that the STP was functional but conceded that its capacity was inadequate. Therefore, the authorities are directed to take necessary action against Respondent No.10.
10. Similarly, the Chief Engineer of BWSSB reported that he had inspected the unlined collection well identified by other respondents and found it unsuitable for constructing the STP. He further stated that the collection well is contributing to pollution in the area, for which the authorities must also initiate action following due process of law.
11. Post the matter on 14.07.2025.
Sd/-
Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM O.A. No.191/2024(SZ) & I.A. Nos.71 & 164/2024(SZ) 02nd May, 2025. Mn.
Page 4 of 4