Sinking of Ukkadam flats was foreseen

COIMBATORE: Much before the apartment blocks constructed by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (TNSCB) at Ukkadam developed cracks and began to sink last week, a former Coimbatore Corporation councillor MS Mohamed Rafeek had sounded out a bugle warning of precisely this.More than a year ago, Rafeek had objected to the construction of the multi-storied apartments at Ukkadam as the site chosen for this was being used a sewerage farm for more than 50 years loosening the soil.“In fact, five decades ago the Government had acquired land for this site exactly for the purpose of letting out sewage. Defying all logic, they had last year chosen the same site to construct 2,904 tenements in the first phase unmindful of the fact that the land was located down an inclined slope terrain. The site was also hardly 100 meters away from the Noyyal River,” Rafeek told Express on Friday.The TNSCB had planned to construct as many as 13,210 tenements, in phases, for relocating slum dwellers at this site. After the TNSCB apartment blocks constructed in Ammankulam, another wetland area, had begun to sink, Rafeeq foresaw a similar disaster waiting to happen in Ukkadam and moved the Madras High Court in July last year seeking to restrain the authorities from going ahead with the plan.“As the land was used as sewage farm for more than 50 years, it has repeatedly absorbed human waste and other sewerage effluents thereby making the land very soft, soggy, unhealthy and unhygienic. Besides, the garbage of Coimbatore city is being dumped by corporation,” he said in his PIL.Pointing out that the soil was capable of “caving in at any time”, he contended that there was a looming threat of the apartment being inundated in case of heavy rains.  Rafeeq prayed the court to appoint a committee to examine the site, before the construction was started. However, the court had dismissed his petition on the ground that it was devoid of merits and against public interest. An undaunted Rafeeq had filed an appeal in the SC challenging the verdict.(With inputs from Eravana Pandian)