Ramkrishna Park pond 2 (Natagarh)

India / Bangla / Sodpur / Natagarh
 water, pond
 Upload a photo
Nearby cities:
Coordinates:   22°41'46"N   88°23'57"E

Comments

  • THE WATER BODY IS CALLED ITKHOLAPUKUR. WHY THESE WATER BODIES ARE CALLED ITKHOLAPUKUR --- THE REASON THAT ALL THESE WATER BODIES ARE THE END RESULT OF CLAY LIFTING FROM THESE AREAS FOR MAKING BRICKS FOR THE BRICKFIELDS OWNED BY TIWARIES. THE BRICKFIELDS WERE IN OPERATION TILL 1962 IN SODEPUR CHANDITALA AREA. THESE TWO UNFILLED ITKHOLAPUKUR ARE BEING USED BY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE OF THE NEIGHBORING AREA THEREFORE THESE WATER BODIES CANNOT BE CALLED AS RAMKRISHNA PARK PUKUR..
  • HC wants a wetland policy soon. Asia Africa Intelligence Wire| August 27, 2005 | COPYRIGHT 2003 Financial Times Ltd. (Hide copyright information)Copyright (From The Statesman (India)) Our legal correspondent KOLKATA, Aug. 26 Calcutta High Court today directed the West Bengal government to declare the states policy with regard to preservation of wetland and creation of industrial zones in wetland areas within four weeks. The Division Bench of the Chief Justice, Mr VS Sirpurkar and Mr Justice Asok Ganguly, passed this order during the hearing of a writ petition and seven other applications about filling of two large water bodies in the Ghola area in North 24-Parganas. A writ petition had been filed by Mr Santi Roy alleging that two water bodies were going to be filled with fly-ash by the CESC through its agent. He also alleged that some factories and residential houses had been built on a part of the said wetland, changing the nature and character of that wetland measuring about 21 acres. One water body is about 14 acres and the other 7 acres. The applications had been filed by some factories challenging the order of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board which had directed the factory owners to shift the factories. The PCB had also directed the CESC not to fill the water bodies with fly-ash. Against that order of the PCB the industries had preferred an appeal to the appellate authority of the PCB. The appellate authority had confirmed the order of the PCB. Against the order of the appellate authority, dated 26 September, 2003, the industries and the CESC had moved the High Court. Today the High Court directed the parties to maintain status quo till the matter came up for hearing after the Puja vacation. Mr Manick Das with Mr Subrata Banerjee appeared for the PCB. Mr Anindya Mitra appeared for the CESC. Mr Surajit Samanta appeared for the industries. Mr Rabilal Maitra, Government Pleader and Mr Soumitra Dasgupta appeared for the state.
  • Land Reforms (State Government Department) Conversion of Classification of Land Classification of a piece of land cannot be changed without prior approval (u/s 4C of the WBLR Act) of the Collector. Violation of this restriction is a cognizable and non-bailable offence (u/s 4D of the WBLR Act) ranging up to 3 years of imprisonment or fine up to Rs. 50000/- or both. Conversion: Conversion to water body is strictly prohibited without compensating equal quantum of area in the same Mouza. It attracts section 17A of Inland Fisheries act as well as provisions of Ul (C & R) Act 1976 & W.B. Town & Country (planning & Development) Act 1979 apart from section 4C(4A) of W.B.L.R. Act 1956.
  • LEGAL AND ACCEPTABLE PROPOSITION ON UNUSED WATERBODY / WETLAND MAY BE AS HEREUNDER: Supreme Court Almanac General Index 2001 (4) Scale Hinch Lal Tiwari … Appellant VS Kamala Devi & Ors … Respondents Coram: Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and S. N. Phukan, JJ. Dt. 25/7/2001 Citation “13. It is important to note that material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature’s bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment, which enable people to enjoy a quality life, which is essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The government, including revenue authorities, i.e. respondents 11 to 13, having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided better environment for the benefit of public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the order of the High Court, restore the order of the Additional Collector dated February 25, 1999 confirmed by the Commissioner on March 12, 1999. Consequently, respondents 1 to 10 shall vacate the land, which was allotted, to them within six months from today. They will, however be permitted to take away the material of the houses which they have constructed on the said land. If respondents 1 to 10 do not vacate the land within the said period the official respondents i.e. respondents 11 to 13 shall demolish the construction and get possession of the said land in accordance with law. THE STATE INCLUDING RESPONDENTS 11 TO 13 SHALL RESTORE THE POND, DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN THE SAME AS A RECREATIONAL SPOT, WHICH WILL UNDOUBTEDLY BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE VILLAGERS. FURTHER IT WILL ALSO HELP IN MAINTAINING ECOLOGICAL BALANCE AND PROTECTING ENVIRONMENT IN REGARD TO WHICH THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY EXPRESSED ITS CONCERN. SUCH MEASURES MUST BEGIN AT THE GRASS-ROOT LEVEL IF THEY WERE TO BECOME THE NATION’S PRIDE.”
This article was last modified 13 years ago