All encroachers except Biju clear the way for Operation Anantha

Thiruvananthapuram: Around 74 encroachments in the form of shops, houses, places of religious worship and administrative offices were evicted as part of restoration of Thekkanakkara canal in the first phase of Operation Anantha, according to a report prepared by district administration. This could well be the biggest ever eviction of encroachments under the provisions of disaster management act (DMA-2005) in the capital.
As per the report, which was prepared to fight legal a case, the encroachers were removed from Manacaud, Vanchiyoor, Sasthamangalam and Muttathara villages through which the Thekkanakkara canal passes and except for hotelier Biju Ramesh and his sister Chitra Ramesh nobody raised objections.Although Karimpanal Arcade owners association filed a petition against the possession of parking area under which the canal passes, the court also upheld the decision of district administration to take possession of the area under which arch-shaped conduit passes.
The high court that upheld the decision of district administration to demolish the portion of Rajadhani building to repair and renovate the Thekkanakkara canal gave a major fillip to eviction drives based on DMA in future.
The court has clearly laid down that Thekkanakkara canal is a public property and has been maintained by the irrigation department since 1956. Biju Ramesh in the petition had contended that he owned a settlement deed for an area of 19.5 cents which was purchased by his mother Indira Devi from the Maharaja of Travancore and he had claimed proprietary rights over the canal which passes through the property.
The high court ruled out this contention saying that the documents of sale deed do not give any indication that the Maharaja has also transferred the canal flowing underneath the land on which Rajadhani building is located. "The fact that since 1956 it was the irrigation department of the state of Kerala which is managing the canal, clearly proves that the canal is a government canal and proprietary right cannot be claimed on the canal," the court said.
This observation bolsters the efforts of the government to restore the canal anticipating a possible disaster. Besides, the court also upheld sections of DMA which could be used by district administration to avert disasters. It came down heavily on single judge who had earlier directed the government to use either land conservancy or land acquisition act for taking over the encroached land.
"Learned single judge committed error in interfering with proceedings by directing the appellants to take recourse to LA and LC which was unwarranted," the court said, adding that section 72 of DMA will have an overriding effect.
The action of district authority was fully in accordance with provisions of DMA, the court said. "The district administration, which have been dealing with legal hurdles with regard to removal of encroachments over canals can now rely on this court order which stresses on sections of Municipality Act and DMA giving powers to district authority to take necessary action to prevent disasters," an official said.