Nagpur: The State Government has submitted an affidavit to the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, stating that Futala Lake does not fall under the category of wetlands. Instead, it is described as a man-made pond constructed during the Bhonsla period with the purpose of supplying water to Telankhedi Garden. The affidavit was filed in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Swachh Foundation, which alleged the illegality of the musical fountain constructed on the lake.
Advocate Anand Parchure, representing the State Government’s Environment Ministry and Wetland Authority, refuted all allegations made by the Swachh Foundation during the hearing of the PIL. The legality and implementation of the ongoing development works at Futala Lake sparked a heated debate during the proceedings, which took place on Wednesday before a division bench comprising Justices Atul Chandurkar and Vrushali Joshi.
Gold Rate
Monday 10 Feb. 2025
The development works at Futala Lake, which include the construction of a musical fountain, viewers’ gallery, laser show, and a multi-storey parking plaza in front of it, have faced objections from the Swachh Association. Adv. Parchure strongly defended the construction, stating that all necessary permissions and a no-objection certificate were obtained from the relevant department. He discredited the claims made by the NGO.
Furthermore, Adv. Parchure argued that the construction of the musical fountain was a part of Nagpur’s development plan and would significantly contribute to tourism and public interest. The focal point of concern for the Swachh NGO revolved around the presence of a banyan tree skeleton within the fountain. The NGO alleged that the tree was planted illegally, raising environmental preservation concerns.
The ongoing development works at Futala Lake, including a musical fountain, viewers’ gallery, laser show and multi-storey parking plaza in front of it have faced objections from the Swachh Association. Adv Parchure asserted that all necessary permissions and a no-objection certificate were duly obtained from the department concerned. He discredited the claims by the NGO.
Adv Parchure also contended that construction of the musical fountain was a part of Nagpur’s development plan and would significantly contribute to tourism and public interest. Swachh NGO’s focal point was regarding the presence of a banyan tree skeleton within the fountain. The NGO claimed that the tree was illegally planted and thus raised concerns about environmental preservation.
However, Adv Parchure and the defending parties denied these accusations and said that all actions were carried out lawfully and in compliance with the necessary regulations. In the last hearing, the court had ordered the petitioners to file their response. The court also made various respondents, including the Centre and State Ministries of Environment, State Public Works Department, Nagpur Metro, MAFSU, Wetland Authority, NMC, and Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth. Adv Jemini Kasat appeared on behalf of NMC, while Adv Nandesh Deshpande represented the Central Government.
Adv Parchure argued that the Futala Lake does not come under the category of ‘wetland’. “It is a man-made pond. It was constructed by the then Bhonsla king to supply water to the Telankhedi garden. The man-made pond was not kept in the list of wetlands,” the state’s counsel submitted.
The HC then asked the petitioner to submit their reply on the state’s affidavit.
Earlier, the petitioner had moved the court claiming inclusion of Futala Lake in the list of National Wetland Inventory and Assessment. “No construction work can be done on these wetlands designated by the central government. There is also an order of the Supreme Court in this regard. Under this order, the Union environment ministry has the responsibility of protecting these types of water sources,” it said.
“In spite of this, construction work was done in full swing at Futala Lake. A musical fountain was installed in the middle of the pond. At the same time, an audience gallery was built on its side. Such construction is completely illegal,” the petition had said.
