MP High Court Calls For State's Report On Plea Challenging Construction Of Bridge At UNESCO Geo-Heritage Site Known For Dinosaur Fossils
Lamheta Ghat
In a plea filed by an environmental conservationist against bridge construction over the Narmada River at Lamheta Ghat, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has asked the state authorities to file a status report within four weeks.
Lamheta Ghat consists of Lameta formation, which is said to be the focal point of Lametasaurus fossils, a certain species of dinosaurs, among other fossils.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf sought a reply from the state after the counsel appearing for the respondent authorities accepted the notice.
Mr Subodh Richariya has filed this petition wherein he claims to be a riverine devotee of Narmada. He has also underscored his genuine interest in the preservation of Lamheta Ghat, which is a UNESCO Heritage site of archaeological importance.
Background
According to the petitioner, the proof of fossils in the region was first documented by Sir William Henry Sleeman in 1828. Afterwards, many such fossils of the extinct mammoth species were found in Lamheta Ghat and nearby places. In 2017, the state government proposed the construction of a bridge over the river at Lamheta Ghat for Rs 49 crores. According to the petitioner, the project was cancelled due to the region's ecological sensitivity. An alternate site at Pipapur was selected by the authorities in 2019. In 2022, India's first geopark was proposed at Lameta.
However, in a turn of events, the new government took steps to acquire private properties in and around Lameta to revive the project that was scrapped in 2019. As a result, the petition states that the bridge construction under the remodeled project has already begun, with a whopping cost of Rs 177 crores.
The grounds adopted by the petitioner as a foundation of his plea are multifold. The PIL states that the project causes harm to the ecological balance of the region. The resumption of the project at Lamheta Ghat is illegal and marred by vested interest, when there are alternative sites available, the activist contends.
Richariya also submits that the state government has dispossessed numerous persons in the region by not adhering to the preconditions of publication and circulation of 'social impact assessment', enunciated under Section 4 of the Right To Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The provisions of the MP Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adiniyam, 1973 were also disregarded by the government, the petitioner adds. According to Section 25 of the 1973 Act, when a development plan under Section 19 comes into force, any further development must conform with the approved plan. The petitioner argues that the Jabalpur Development Plan, 2021, specifically states that any construction in the Lameta area would have a negative effect. The Development Plan underscores the necessity of preserving the river bank of Narmada with plantations, Ruchariya points out.
No NOC has been obtained from the Town and Country Planning or GSI for constructing the bridge at Lameta, the petition highlights, in addition to the country's obligations under the UNESCO Convention on Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972. As a prominent fossil site where dinosaur eggs were found, Lameta formation must be freed from the possible repercussions of 'pulling up a goliath bridge', which is budgeted at several crores, the petitioner submitted.
Reliefs Sought
Stating the above reasons, the petitioner urges the court to make the government select an alternative site for the bridge. Moreover, the petitioner wants the court to ensure that none of the respondents disturbs Lameta Formation's equilibrium. The fossil site must be protected by declaring Lameta as an ASI state-protected site, the petitioner prays before the court.
Moreover, the petition also seeks retributive action against erring officials who allegedly disregarded the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 and MP Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adiniyam, 1973. The petitioner relies upon the High Court's recent observation that the lack of government officials' legal knowledge cannot be a defence for violating citizen's constitutional rights. Another relief in the plea states that the Union may be directed to complete a comprehensive survey to identify sensitive locations of the fossils.
Advocate Pranay Pathak appeared for the petitioner. Additional Advocate General Ashish Anand Barnard represented respondents No.1 to 4/State. Advocate Sandeep Shukla appeared on behalf of the Union of India.
Case Title: Subodh Richariya v. State of M.P & Ors
Case No: WP No. 17395 of 2024