<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited (KNNL) has been accused of providing misleading information to questions over “illegal and blatantly unauthorised” works it took up on the riverbed of Sharavathi to benefit a mutt in Shivamogga district.</p>.<p>In November 2024, <em>DH</em> reported on the cash-strapped KNNL spending Rs 300 crore on mutts and halls, works that violated its mandate. Among those works were a decorative pushkarani and a retaining wall. In response, the agency said the land belongs to Ramachandrapura mutt.</p>.<p>The National Green Tribunal (NGT) had issued notice to the agency and others following a detailed petition by the activists Manjunath Hirechowti and Deepak C N of Lanchamukta Karnataka. KNNL’s response that the Shivamogga MP B Y Raghavendra had made a request for the works based on an approval by the Finance Department came under attack.</p>.NGT disposes case against Netravati riverfront development.<p>In a rejoinder, the activists said Raghavendra’s letter was dated August 2020 while the government approval came in January 2021. They termed the KNNL’s submission false and misleading. “It is factually untenable and internally inconsistent for a request made in August 2020 to be based on an approval that did not exist,” they said adding it exposes KNNL’s attempt to “mislead” the tribunal with “false sequence of events”.</p>.<p><strong>River ecology affected</strong></p>.<p>The rejoinder pointed to the satellite maps submitted by the KNNL to show the disturbance caused to the riverbed. They noted that permanently lined masonry structure constructed using stone and granite significantly reduced natural percolation and groundwater recharge.</p>.<p>“The construction of the riverfront and Pushkarani, while intended to protect the temple and support ritual purposes, has altered the natural flow regime of tributaries and modified the floodplain,” they said.</p>.<p>Further, the activists pointed out that KNNL did not obtain either consent for establishment or environment clearances as stipulated by the Environment Impact Assessment Rules.</p>.<p>They questioned the mutation entry of the land where the retaining wall was built. “The fact that mutation was effected subsequent to the initiation of proceedings (in the NGT) gives rise to reasonable inference that the same may have been undertaken to retrospectively legitimise the impugned construction,” they said.</p>.<p>To a question, Hirechowti said the respondents have not been complying with the tribunal’s notices and directions issued since April 4, 2025. “I have submitted an interlocutory application, praying for early hearing in the case. Except KNNL’s response filled with flaws, no other government bodies have responded to the tribunal’s notice,” he <br>said.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited (KNNL) has been accused of providing misleading information to questions over “illegal and blatantly unauthorised” works it took up on the riverbed of Sharavathi to benefit a mutt in Shivamogga district.</p>.<p>In November 2024, <em>DH</em> reported on the cash-strapped KNNL spending Rs 300 crore on mutts and halls, works that violated its mandate. Among those works were a decorative pushkarani and a retaining wall. In response, the agency said the land belongs to Ramachandrapura mutt.</p>.<p>The National Green Tribunal (NGT) had issued notice to the agency and others following a detailed petition by the activists Manjunath Hirechowti and Deepak C N of Lanchamukta Karnataka. KNNL’s response that the Shivamogga MP B Y Raghavendra had made a request for the works based on an approval by the Finance Department came under attack.</p>.NGT disposes case against Netravati riverfront development.<p>In a rejoinder, the activists said Raghavendra’s letter was dated August 2020 while the government approval came in January 2021. They termed the KNNL’s submission false and misleading. “It is factually untenable and internally inconsistent for a request made in August 2020 to be based on an approval that did not exist,” they said adding it exposes KNNL’s attempt to “mislead” the tribunal with “false sequence of events”.</p>.<p><strong>River ecology affected</strong></p>.<p>The rejoinder pointed to the satellite maps submitted by the KNNL to show the disturbance caused to the riverbed. They noted that permanently lined masonry structure constructed using stone and granite significantly reduced natural percolation and groundwater recharge.</p>.<p>“The construction of the riverfront and Pushkarani, while intended to protect the temple and support ritual purposes, has altered the natural flow regime of tributaries and modified the floodplain,” they said.</p>.<p>Further, the activists pointed out that KNNL did not obtain either consent for establishment or environment clearances as stipulated by the Environment Impact Assessment Rules.</p>.<p>They questioned the mutation entry of the land where the retaining wall was built. “The fact that mutation was effected subsequent to the initiation of proceedings (in the NGT) gives rise to reasonable inference that the same may have been undertaken to retrospectively legitimise the impugned construction,” they said.</p>.<p>To a question, Hirechowti said the respondents have not been complying with the tribunal’s notices and directions issued since April 4, 2025. “I have submitted an interlocutory application, praying for early hearing in the case. Except KNNL’s response filled with flaws, no other government bodies have responded to the tribunal’s notice,” he <br>said.</p>