HAS THE NGT ORDER OF MARCH 24, 2026 BEEN IMPLEMENTED?
₹68 CRORE NETRAVATI WATERFRONT PROJECT CLAIMED TO BE 68% COMPLETE — DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHOW THE PEOPLE THE RECORDS!
Bolar Mulihithlu Netravati Waterfront / Sea Face Cycle Track
The ₹68 crore Waterfront Cycle Track project along the Netravati river is no longer merely a question of development. It has become a serious test of legality, CRZ compliance, environmental protection, government land utilisation, public expenditure and administrative accountability. And now, the questions have become even more serious.
A Times of India report states that at the DISHA meeting held on August 29, 2026, the Dakshina Kannada Deputy Commissioner stated that 68% of the Waterfront Project had been completed. The report also states that port land has been leased for 30 years and that removal of encroachments is required for the remaining work.
But NECAP has challenged this claim of 68% completion. So the most basic question is:
ON WHOSE LAND HAS 68% OF THE PROJECT BEEN COMPLETED?
If the claim is that land under the possession of the Mangaluru Port Department was transferred to Mangaluru Smart City for development, then: Does that land actually belong to the Port Department?
Reports citing RTI information have raised questions regarding the availability of RTC and sketch records relating to the land.
Therefore:
- Who legally owns the land?
- On which survey numbers has the work been carried out?
- Where are the RTC/Pahani records for each survey number?
- Where is the Government Order authorising transfer of the land?
- Where is the 30 year Lease Deed?
- What document establishes the Port Department’s legal title over the land?
- If the land is river poramboke/government land, under what legal authority has it been permitted for this project?
WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE NGT ORDER?
In O.A. No. 52/2024(SZ) before the Southern Zone Bench of the National Green Tribunal, an order was passed on March 24, 2026. What action has the District Administration taken pursuant to that order? Was a site inspection conducted? Was CRZ compliance verified? Were all project permissions re-examined? Were any violations detected? If violations were detected, what action was taken?
The public deserves an official answer.
THE CRZ QUESTION CANNOT BE IGNORED
Construction activities in coastal areas are governed by the Coastal Regulation Zone framework.
The restrictions and permissions applicable to CRZ II, CRZ III and CRZ IV areas cannot simply be ignored in the name of development. Therefore, the District Administration must clarify:
- What is the CRZ classification of this project area?
- What CRZ permissions were required?
- Which authority granted those permissions?
- Have all the conditions attached to those permissions been complied with?
RIVER PORAMBOKE LAND CAN IT BE USED AS ANYONE WISHES?
If the land is river poramboke/government land under the control of the Deputy Commissioner, what is its legal status? In the light of the relevant Government Orders/circulars of 2014 and 2018 and the applicable directions of the Supreme Court, the District Administration must clarify whether such river poramboke land can legally be:
- transferred,
- its character altered, or
- used for permanent construction.
If the project has been executed on small, disconnected parcels of land without clearly identifiable survey numbers, then:
How were the legal ownership, boundaries, and right to use the land established?
WHAT ABOUT THE MANGROVES AND THE RIVER ESTUARY?
Has the impact of the project on the mangroves and the estuarine ecosystem been scientifically assessed? If mangroves have been removed and soil has been filled into portions of the river to create land and construct retaining walls, then:
- What is the impact on the natural flow of the Netravati, flood levels, hydrology, sediment movement, fish breeding and aquatic biodiversity?
- Where is the technical and scientific assessment of these impacts?
- If homestays, resorts and other commercial activities subsequently come up in these areas, has the administration assessed the future risk of sewage and drainage water entering the Netravati?
RETAINING WALL COLLAPSE WHY NO INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION?
The collapse of a retaining wall constructed at Mulihithlu, reportedly during ordinary rainfall, raises serious questions about the design, construction quality, and supervision of the project.
If a retaining wall of a ₹68 crore project has failed:
Has an independent technical investigation been conducted? Was the design examined? Was the soil filling and foundation design scientifically appropriate? Has the contractor’s responsibility been determined? Has the responsibility of the engineers who supervised the work been examined? Why is there silence when public money has been spent on a structure that has reportedly failed?
WHAT EXACTLY DOES 68% COMPLETE MEAN?
If the Deputy Commissioner has stated that 68% of the project is complete, the public deserves more than a percentage. How was the 68% calculated?
- Approved DPR
- BOQ
- Measurement Book (MB)
- Work Order
- Running Bills
- Details of funds released and expenditure incurred
- List of completed components
- List of pending works
- Survey number-wise details of the work executed
All of these should be made public.
₹68 CRORE OF PUBLIC MONEY THE PUBLIC DESERVES THE ACCOUNTS!
The District Administration should make the following documents public:
- Complete DPR of the project
- Administrative and Technical Sanction
- Work Order and Contract Agreement
- BOQ and Measurement Book
- Complete details of funds released and expenditure incurred
- 30 year Lease Deed
- Government Orders relating to transfer of land
- Survey number wise RTC/Pahani and maps
- CRZ permissions and related documents
- Compliance/Action Taken Report following the NGT order
- Site inspection reports
- Technical investigation report concerning the retaining wall failure
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DON’T JUST SAY 68%. SHOW THE RECORDS!
- If the land is legally held, SHOW THE DOCUMENTS.
- If the lease is legally valid, SHOW THE LEASE DEED.
- If CRZ permission exists, SHOW THE PERMISSION.
- If the NGT order has been complied with, SHOW THE COMPLIANCE REPORT.
- If the construction is scientifically sound, SHOW THE TECHNICAL REPORT.
- If the retaining wall is safe, SHOW THE DESIGN AND STRUCTURAL SAFETY RECORDS.
- If 68% of the project has genuinely been completed, SHOW THE PUBLIC THE ACCOUNTING BEHIND THAT 68%.
The Netravati is not anybody’s private property.
It is a public natural resource. Development is necessary, but not at the cost of the law. Development is necessary, but not by altering the natural flow of the river. Development is necessary, but not by destroying mangroves, the estuarine ecosystem, biodiversity and the rights of future generations.
The central question remains:
WHAT ACTION HAVE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION ACTUALLY TAKEN AFTER THE NGT ORDER OF MARCH 24, 2026?
- If action has been taken, SHOW THE RECORDS.
- If violations exist, TAKE ACTION.
- If everything is legally compliant, CLARIFY IT TO THE PUBLIC.
- If no action has been taken, EXPLAIN WHY.
Protecting the Netravati is the responsibility of the District Administration.
- Enforcing the law is the responsibility of the administration.
- Protecting public money is also its responsibility.
So the people have a legitimate question for the Deputy Commissioner:
“What is the legal basis for spending ₹68 crore and claiming 68% completion of a project along the Netravati?”
- DEVELOP THE NETRAVATI, BUT DO NOT DESTROY IT.
- DEVELOPMENT MUST BE LAWFUL.
- DEVELOPMENT MUST BE SUSTAINABLE.
- DEVELOPMENT MUST NOT DESTROY THE NETRAVATI.
