Environmental organisation flags dilution of safeguards in rules regarding conversion of agricultural land in T.N.

Converting agricultural land to a non-agricultural use means changing its approved purpose from farming to another use. Examples include developing buildings, layouts, or industrial facilities. The change is not simply a physical construction decision; it involves official approval under land-use rules.

In the article, Tamil Nadu’s rules cover conversion from agriculture to non-agriculture in non-planning areas. For wetland proposals, applicants must submit ownership, land-record, drainage, site, and development-plan documents through the Single Window Portal. The Director of Town and Country Planning must also obtain clearances from three departments.

The process matters because conversion can make agricultural land available for private or industrial development. Poovulagin Nanbargal is concerned that weaker scrutiny could make it harder to identify problems before approval. The organisation particularly questioned reduced personal inspection by the District Collector and greater reliance on uploaded documents and self-attested declarations.

Tamil Nadu amended the Tamil Nadu Change of Land Use rules for converting agricultural land in non-planning areas. The government has been simplifying the procedure. Poovulagin Nanbargal says this could weaken scrutiny when agricultural land is proposed for non-agricultural development.

The organisation questioned the removal of an earlier requirement for the District Collector to personally inspect the land and examine several factors before granting approval. Under the amended Rule 4, the Director of Town and Country Planning must obtain NOCs from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Joint Director of Agriculture, and Executive Engineer of the Water Resources Department for wetland cases.

The practical change is a shift toward applications submitted through the Single Window Portal with uploaded records and declarations. Poovulagin Nanbargal says the rules do not clearly identify which officials will physically inspect the site. It also criticised the government’s haste to make agricultural land available to private players for industrial development.

Wetland conversion applications must now be submitted through Tamil Nadu’s Single Window Portal. The required documents are intended to show ownership, existing land conditions, proposed development, drainage, and recent land records. The application also includes a declaration about the land included in the proposal.

Applicants must upload the sale or lease deed, patta, site drainage plan, site plan, and proposed layout, subdivision, or building plan. They must provide a topographic plan showing existing developments within a 500-metre radius. The file must also contain an online affidavit stating that no government, poromboke, or third-party land is included.

Applicants must additionally upload chitta and adangal records for the past three Fasli years, including the current year. Poovulagin Nanbargal objects to the process relying heavily on uploaded documents and self-attested declarations. The organisation argues that documents alone may not replace clear responsibility for checking the site on the ground.

Wetland conversion applications require No Objection Certificates from three government departments under amended Rule 4. These clearances are part of the approval process handled by the Director of Town and Country Planning. The requirement is meant to bring revenue, agriculture, and water-resources authorities into the review.

The three officials or departments named are the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Joint Director of Agriculture, and the Executive Engineer of the Water Resources Department. At the same time, applicants must submit a topographic plan showing existing developments within 500 metres of the proposed site. This provides a defined surrounding area for the application’s site information.

Poovulagin Nanbargal accepts that the amendments mandate the three NOCs but says they do not clearly explain who will physically inspect the land. That distinction matters to the organisation because it believes uploaded documents and self-attested declarations should not replace direct site scrutiny during wetland conversion approvals.

Wetlands and agricultural land are usually examined carefully because they are working parts of land and water systems, not just vacant sites. Agricultural land supports cultivation, while wetlands can be connected to drainage and water movement. Changing their use may therefore affect nearby development and the land’s existing functions. These are established planning reasons; the article does not detail each one.

The amended rules reflect several of those concerns by requiring a site drainage plan, recent chitta and adangal records, a topographic plan, and clearances from agriculture and water-resources officials. The application must also state that no government, poromboke, or third-party land has been included.

Poovulagin Nanbargal argues that these safeguards need effective scrutiny, not only paperwork. It questioned the removal of the District Collector’s personal inspection and the lack of clarity about physical inspections. If checks are weaker, decisions may not fully account for the site’s agricultural or wetland character before buildings, layouts, or industrial uses are approved.

If officials rely mainly on uploaded documents and self-attested declarations, the approval process could miss conditions that are visible only on the ground. Records may not fully show current drainage, actual development, or the relationship between the proposed site and nearby land. This is a potential risk, not an outcome established by the article.

For example, applicants must declare online that no government, poromboke, or third-party land is included. They must also upload plans and records, including a topographic plan covering 500 metres. A site visit could compare those submissions with the land itself and identify discrepancies or overlooked features.

Poovulagin Nanbargal says the amended process places too much reliance on applicants’ uploads and self-attested declarations. It also says the rules lack clarity about which officials will conduct physical inspections, despite requiring three NOCs. The forward concern is that formal clearances may exist without equally clear, on-site verification.

Governments could preserve a simple application portal while requiring independent, risk-based site inspections before approval. They could publish proposals for public comment, verify ownership against official records, and require applicants to map drainage, wetlands, agricultural use, and nearby development. These are safeguards beyond the article’s stated amendments and are general planning options.

A stronger process could assign inspection duties clearly to named officials and require written reports from revenue, agriculture, and water-resources authorities. Projects could face conditions such as maintaining drainage routes, protecting common land, providing flood-management measures, or compensating for lost agricultural capacity. Sensitive areas could receive stricter review than lower-risk sites.

Such measures could support industrial development without treating every agricultural parcel alike. They would also directly address Poovulagin Nanbargal’s concerns about unclear inspections, private development, and self-attested declarations. Regular audits and penalties for inaccurate submissions could make the safeguards meaningful while keeping legitimate applications moving.