Balaji temple plot cut to 25%, CRZ nod ignores Violations: Greens

As per the MCZMA minutes, CIDCO and Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) have submitted that of the 40,000 sq mtr plot for the temple, 2748.18 sq mtr fall under CRZ1A, 25,656.58 sq mtr in CRZ2 while 11,595 sq mtr is outside CRZ

NAVI MUMBAI

Balaji temple plot cut to 25%, CRZ nod ignores Violations: Greens

The buildable area for the Tirupati Venkateswara temple in Navi Mumbai has been reduced to almost one-fourth in the CRZ (Coastal Regulation Zone) permission granted which is also illegal, green groups claim.

The Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) which has given the CRZ nod at its 167th meeting held on May 23 has not considered the fact that the temple plot is part of a purely temporary casting yard that has come up after the destruction of mangroves on over 16 hectares, NatConnect Foundation said.

As per the MCZMA minutes, CIDCO and Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) have submitted that of the 40,000 sq mtr plot for the temple, 2748.18 sq mtr fall under CRZ1A, 25,656.58 sq mtr in CRZ2 while 11,595 sq mtr is outside CRZ.

The MCZMA permitted the construction on only non-CRZ area which is 11,595 sq mtr, a little one-fourth of the allotted 40,000 sq mtr (or 10 acres).

A press release by CIDCO in April last year admitted that the Balaji temple plot is part of the casting yard of the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link. The Mumbai Metropolitan regional Development Authority (MMRDA) which is building the MTHL has agreed to vacate 10 acres for the temple by September 2023, the press release said.

This part was apparently hidden from the MCZMA, NatConnect director B N Kumar alleged.

MMRDA has obtained the environmental clearance for the casting yard at Nhava end, which falls under Ulwe node, after diversion of mangroves on over 16 hectares and filling up an intertidal wetland, Kumar said quoting documents from MOEFCC, MMRDA and JICA which is financing the project.

CIDCO which continues to have control over the mangroves and wetland ought to have restored the biodiversity area instead of making the reclamation permanent which is absolutely illegal, Kumar said in his fresh complaint to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC) and called for revoking the EC granted to MMRDA.

The Mangrove Conservation Cell of the Forest Department has conducted an on-the-spot inspection of the area following complaints from NatConnect and reported that the plot designated for the temple was originally a wetland. The inspection report, filed by forester Bapu Gadade, also mentioned the presence of mangroves within 40 to45 mtr of the temple plot and a fishing pond.

Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and Deputy CM Devendra Fadnavis performed the groundbreaking ceremony on June 7 but one wonders as to what kind of construction can take place for the replica of Tirupati Venkateswara temple on 11,500 sq mtr, Kumar said.

As per Parivesh (Pro-Active and Responsive facilitation by Interactive Virtuous & Environmental Single-window Hub) website of the MOEFCC, CRZ-II is defined as: The areas that have already been developed up to or close to the shoreline. For this purpose, “developed area” is referred to as that area within the municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which is already substantially built up and which has been provided with drainage and approach roads and other infrastructural facilities, such as water supply and sewerage mains.

As far as the purported CRZ-II part of the Balaji temple plot is concerned this definition does not apply as there is no sign of any infrastructure development here, Nandakumar Pawar, head of Shri Ekvira Aai Pratishtan, pointed out. This part of the land used to be a fishing zone before the casting yard came up burying the mangroves and wetland.

The fishing community which was barred from entering the creek due to the casting yard was hopeful that they could resume their activities after the MTHL work finished. But with the temple project, the community will permanently be denied its constitutional right, he said.

Kumar and Pawar said they have no objection whatsoever to the temple and CIDCO should allot land for it elsewhere.

CIDCO has repeatedly refused to comment on the allegations.