RR
28th May 2008, 09:32 AM
MULLAI PERIYAR - 1
- Padmanabha
Like the course of the river, the row over the Mullai periyar issue is taking twist, turns, and meandering. Here is the extract of the lease called “Periyar Pattakkarar.”
Course of the River
[html:8734b33e2c]http://mayyam.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=135&g2_serialNumber=1[/html:8734b33e2c]
Before going into the lease, let us analyze the course of the river. Mullayar emerges from the east of Sabarimala and joins the Periyar River after flowing 10 miles north and assumes the name Mullai periyar. The dam is built seven miles of this confluence. The water flows through Peermedu, Vandiperiyar, crosses Kottayam-Kumili road, and reaches the west of Devikulam. Flowing to the right of Munnar it irrigates Moovattupuzha, Thodupuzha, and Kunnathunadu. It bifurcates at Aluva. One of the branches continues as Aluvapuzha and the other again bifurcates at Elanthikara and merges with Kodungalloor and Varappuzha backwaters.
Course of the Lease
Following prolonged famine in Madurai district of the Madras Presidency, a proposal to facilitate irrigation in this area was mooted. In the words of the secretary of the State for India -
“to utilize a portion of the super abundant rainfall on the western slopes of the ghats for the purpose of the irrigation in the district of Madurai to the east of the watershed where rainfall in scanty and uncertain, where famine has in consequence been severely felt on more than one occasion”.
The idea was to build a dam and channels to the point of distribution which are 80 to 90 miles away. The dimensions of the dam are as follows:
Length-1241 ft
Maximum height above the river bed 158ft
Thickness lower part 115 3/4 ft
Thickness top 12 ft
Full reservoir level 152 ft (above the bed)
Water spread expected 312.2 million square ft
Total capacity 15662 million cubic feet
Catchment area of 305 square miles is in the cardamom hills and the dam faces the Gudalur Ghat.
The reservoir and the works were in the Travancore territory. Before the erection of the dam, the water flowed down the periyar to the sea enhancing the cultivation and offering inland navigation to the people of Travancore. The investigation began in 1850 and took three decades. The area locked up within inaccessible forests and Travancore had no clear idea as far as the extension of sacrifice they were invited to commit.
The then Dewan of Travancore Madhava Rao, in a reply to the Madras government said that the engineers might be permitted to proceed on condition that deducting five percent of the expense the profits should be shared equally between the two governments.
By the time Barton, Engineer to the Travancore government was entrusted with the task of inspecting the locality and the viability of the Project. However, he confined only to the professional side and ignored how the work would affect Travancore. He sent his report to the British Resident and a copy of it was later submitted to the Dewan.
The British government was determined to fix the payment to Travancore at the lowest figure possible and sent a rejoinder saying that the waters in question up to that time had been wasted.
Thus Travancore was forced to execute a fresh investigation. Vernede the conservator of Forest A W Jacob Chief Engineer, Rama Rao Dewan Peishkar were appointed to investigate. The report said “ The Periyar 10 ft wide and the Mullayar 174ft wide meet at Mullayar Thavalam. None of its tributaries are more than 12 ft wide and they dry up in summer. If the dam was erected below the junction of Mullayar and periyar, the river would in future dependent for its water supply on the small streams lower down. These rivers have no flow of water for four months in the year. Large tracts of paddy lands on either side of the river from above Malayattoor to the sea which are now irrigated by overflowing of the rivers bank suffers.”
Dewan Seshaiah Satri proposed that compensation should be fixed amount and demanded Rs 75000 per annum to be paid from the year 1882. It was also stressed that if Travancore wished water supply from this reserve should be met with same terms and conditions.
It was estimated that 8000 acres of land would be submerged. A W Jacob chief engineer said that the flow at Alwaye would be diminished. T Rama Rao Dewan Peishkar of Kottayam pointed out that paddy cultivation has to be abandoned.
The wet cultivation on the banks of backwaters were affected by the tides from Kochi and Cranganore bars. This salt content in this area is washed away by the overflowing Periyar, making the land fit for cultivation. Any decrease in the water supply of Periyar would adversely affect paddy cultivation. Thus, what might appear as wastewater of the waters through the Periyar is the real cause of the fertility of the land along which it flows.
When Rama Iyengar the Dewan of Travancore was for detailed examination and study of the project Major Pennycuick objected it by saying that the study would help shelve the project. The Governor in counsel was obviously in favour of Pennycuick. Thus Dewan’s proposal was considered unnecessary. Hannyngton put forwarded the following proposals to Travancore.
Rs. Seven lakhs in cash will be paid
Anjengo and Thankasseri the company’s paattam gardens at cherthala will be transferred to Travncore in return of 8000 acres of land for the use of water proposed to be diverted and for cutting valuable timber.
The Madras government replied that the lake can be used for inland navigation and settlers would be attracted which will increase the values of the land-far beyond the cost of the land submerged.
The government did not agree with the surrendering of Anjutheng and the same of Thankasseri was vetoed. With these modifications Periyar lease agreement was signed on 29th October 1886 between the Maharaja of TRAVANCORE AND the secretary of State for India in council.
The lease concluded thus;
“If and whenever any dispute or question shall arise between the leaser and the lessee touching these presents or anything here in contained or the construction hereof or the rights other duties and liabilities of either party the matter in difference shall be referred to two arbitrators or their umpire pursuant to and sa as with regard to the mode consequence of reference and in all other respects to conform to the provisions in that behalf of the civil procedure (1882) of the Legislative council of India or any then subsisting statutory modifications there of”.
Immediately after the commencement of the work a proposal to increase the capacity of the dam was mooted by the Madras government. The British Engineer acting smart said, “Sanctioned estimate in anticipation of the permission of the Travancore Government”.
In reply the Dewan wrote, “ …in increasing the capacity of the reservoir by raising the bund no larger volume of water will be diverted from Travancore than was said in the agreement of the 29th October 1886”
In 1898 it was discovered that the area in possession of the British authorities was 9278.63 acres. In 1932, the Madras Government proposed the production of electricity though Periyar agreement did not contemplate it. The Madras government contended that it was at their absolute and unfettered disposal regarding the use of water. For the first time the matter was taken to the arbitrators namely Sir David Devadas and Dewan Behadur V S Subramania Iyer. The case was argued by Sir C P RRamaswami Iyer and Advocate General Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Iyer. They differed in their opinion. The matter was set aside for the consideration of an umpire.
As per court decision the right to power generation was awarded to Travancore. This issue was raised once again in 1953 when AJ John was the Chief Minister of Tiru Kochi. His proposal of joint venture power production was turned down. Later when Pattom Thanu Pillai sanctioned power generation. The then chief minister of Tamil Nadu Kamaraj inaugurated the project on 12th October 1958.
The paatakarar was renewed in 1970 retaining all the conditions in the agreement.
(To be continued)
[tscii:8734b33e2c][/tscii:8734b33e2c]
- Padmanabha
Like the course of the river, the row over the Mullai periyar issue is taking twist, turns, and meandering. Here is the extract of the lease called “Periyar Pattakkarar.”
Course of the River
[html:8734b33e2c]http://mayyam.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=135&g2_serialNumber=1[/html:8734b33e2c]
Before going into the lease, let us analyze the course of the river. Mullayar emerges from the east of Sabarimala and joins the Periyar River after flowing 10 miles north and assumes the name Mullai periyar. The dam is built seven miles of this confluence. The water flows through Peermedu, Vandiperiyar, crosses Kottayam-Kumili road, and reaches the west of Devikulam. Flowing to the right of Munnar it irrigates Moovattupuzha, Thodupuzha, and Kunnathunadu. It bifurcates at Aluva. One of the branches continues as Aluvapuzha and the other again bifurcates at Elanthikara and merges with Kodungalloor and Varappuzha backwaters.
Course of the Lease
Following prolonged famine in Madurai district of the Madras Presidency, a proposal to facilitate irrigation in this area was mooted. In the words of the secretary of the State for India -
“to utilize a portion of the super abundant rainfall on the western slopes of the ghats for the purpose of the irrigation in the district of Madurai to the east of the watershed where rainfall in scanty and uncertain, where famine has in consequence been severely felt on more than one occasion”.
The idea was to build a dam and channels to the point of distribution which are 80 to 90 miles away. The dimensions of the dam are as follows:
Length-1241 ft
Maximum height above the river bed 158ft
Thickness lower part 115 3/4 ft
Thickness top 12 ft
Full reservoir level 152 ft (above the bed)
Water spread expected 312.2 million square ft
Total capacity 15662 million cubic feet
Catchment area of 305 square miles is in the cardamom hills and the dam faces the Gudalur Ghat.
The reservoir and the works were in the Travancore territory. Before the erection of the dam, the water flowed down the periyar to the sea enhancing the cultivation and offering inland navigation to the people of Travancore. The investigation began in 1850 and took three decades. The area locked up within inaccessible forests and Travancore had no clear idea as far as the extension of sacrifice they were invited to commit.
The then Dewan of Travancore Madhava Rao, in a reply to the Madras government said that the engineers might be permitted to proceed on condition that deducting five percent of the expense the profits should be shared equally between the two governments.
By the time Barton, Engineer to the Travancore government was entrusted with the task of inspecting the locality and the viability of the Project. However, he confined only to the professional side and ignored how the work would affect Travancore. He sent his report to the British Resident and a copy of it was later submitted to the Dewan.
The British government was determined to fix the payment to Travancore at the lowest figure possible and sent a rejoinder saying that the waters in question up to that time had been wasted.
Thus Travancore was forced to execute a fresh investigation. Vernede the conservator of Forest A W Jacob Chief Engineer, Rama Rao Dewan Peishkar were appointed to investigate. The report said “ The Periyar 10 ft wide and the Mullayar 174ft wide meet at Mullayar Thavalam. None of its tributaries are more than 12 ft wide and they dry up in summer. If the dam was erected below the junction of Mullayar and periyar, the river would in future dependent for its water supply on the small streams lower down. These rivers have no flow of water for four months in the year. Large tracts of paddy lands on either side of the river from above Malayattoor to the sea which are now irrigated by overflowing of the rivers bank suffers.”
Dewan Seshaiah Satri proposed that compensation should be fixed amount and demanded Rs 75000 per annum to be paid from the year 1882. It was also stressed that if Travancore wished water supply from this reserve should be met with same terms and conditions.
It was estimated that 8000 acres of land would be submerged. A W Jacob chief engineer said that the flow at Alwaye would be diminished. T Rama Rao Dewan Peishkar of Kottayam pointed out that paddy cultivation has to be abandoned.
The wet cultivation on the banks of backwaters were affected by the tides from Kochi and Cranganore bars. This salt content in this area is washed away by the overflowing Periyar, making the land fit for cultivation. Any decrease in the water supply of Periyar would adversely affect paddy cultivation. Thus, what might appear as wastewater of the waters through the Periyar is the real cause of the fertility of the land along which it flows.
When Rama Iyengar the Dewan of Travancore was for detailed examination and study of the project Major Pennycuick objected it by saying that the study would help shelve the project. The Governor in counsel was obviously in favour of Pennycuick. Thus Dewan’s proposal was considered unnecessary. Hannyngton put forwarded the following proposals to Travancore.
Rs. Seven lakhs in cash will be paid
Anjengo and Thankasseri the company’s paattam gardens at cherthala will be transferred to Travncore in return of 8000 acres of land for the use of water proposed to be diverted and for cutting valuable timber.
The Madras government replied that the lake can be used for inland navigation and settlers would be attracted which will increase the values of the land-far beyond the cost of the land submerged.
The government did not agree with the surrendering of Anjutheng and the same of Thankasseri was vetoed. With these modifications Periyar lease agreement was signed on 29th October 1886 between the Maharaja of TRAVANCORE AND the secretary of State for India in council.
The lease concluded thus;
“If and whenever any dispute or question shall arise between the leaser and the lessee touching these presents or anything here in contained or the construction hereof or the rights other duties and liabilities of either party the matter in difference shall be referred to two arbitrators or their umpire pursuant to and sa as with regard to the mode consequence of reference and in all other respects to conform to the provisions in that behalf of the civil procedure (1882) of the Legislative council of India or any then subsisting statutory modifications there of”.
Immediately after the commencement of the work a proposal to increase the capacity of the dam was mooted by the Madras government. The British Engineer acting smart said, “Sanctioned estimate in anticipation of the permission of the Travancore Government”.
In reply the Dewan wrote, “ …in increasing the capacity of the reservoir by raising the bund no larger volume of water will be diverted from Travancore than was said in the agreement of the 29th October 1886”
In 1898 it was discovered that the area in possession of the British authorities was 9278.63 acres. In 1932, the Madras Government proposed the production of electricity though Periyar agreement did not contemplate it. The Madras government contended that it was at their absolute and unfettered disposal regarding the use of water. For the first time the matter was taken to the arbitrators namely Sir David Devadas and Dewan Behadur V S Subramania Iyer. The case was argued by Sir C P RRamaswami Iyer and Advocate General Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Iyer. They differed in their opinion. The matter was set aside for the consideration of an umpire.
As per court decision the right to power generation was awarded to Travancore. This issue was raised once again in 1953 when AJ John was the Chief Minister of Tiru Kochi. His proposal of joint venture power production was turned down. Later when Pattom Thanu Pillai sanctioned power generation. The then chief minister of Tamil Nadu Kamaraj inaugurated the project on 12th October 1958.
The paatakarar was renewed in 1970 retaining all the conditions in the agreement.
(To be continued)
[tscii:8734b33e2c][/tscii:8734b33e2c]