HC says no to ban construction near city zoo

CUTTACK: In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court (HC) has refused to pass a general direction on banning of construction activities within 1-km radius of Nandankanan Zoological Park. Vacating a nine-year-old interim stay on such activities, a Division Bench of the HC maintained that law is well settled that right to hold property is a constitutional as well as a human right. The court took note of the affidavit of the Zoo director stating that there is no proposal from Nandankanan authorities to acquire land within 1-km radius for declaration of green belt. The case dates back to 2002 when Zakir Khan, an activist, filed a PIL in the HC praying for a direction to State authorities to take steps to ban all construction activities within the 1-km radius of the boundary of the zoological park which also happens to be a wildlife sanctuary. The petitioner had stated that large-scale construction activities close to sanctuary area and zoo will adversely affect the ecology and a green belt of buffer zone is desirable for maintaining proper ambience in the vicinity of the zoo. Counsel for the petitioner Siba Narayan Panda had prayed to the court for a stop on all plotting schemes and construction activities in 1-km radius of the sanctuary, direction to the State Government for an environment study, environment management plan, action plan for development of green belt and demarcation of sanctuary area for expediting land acquisition process.  In 2008, the HC had appointed advocate Gautam Mishra to inspect and report if there was any violation of its 2002 interim order. The report had indicated several constructions within 1-km radius, quarrying at two sites, roads and other construction activities. After this, the court asked the Government advocate in August 2010 to file a detailed statement by way of an affidavit indicating if the State Government intended to acquire the area for declaring it as a green belt. The HC Bench of Chief Justice V Gopalagowda and Justice BN Mahapatra, in its September 30 judgement, stated that a general direction cannot be given as prayed in the writ petition. The Bench also cited the Supreme Court observations in two cases of 2007 __ in Lachhman Dass vs Jagat Ram and Others and Chairman of Indore Vikas Pradhikaran vs Pure Industrial Coke and Chemicals Ltd and Others __ that right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional right but also a human right.