THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: A five-member expert committee headed by Justice Thottathil Radhakrishnan found in the field survey that there are 21,582 more structures in the buffer zone than in the satellite survey. There are a total of 70,582 structures. An earlier satellite survey by KSREC (Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre) had identified 49,000 structures.

After examining the report submitted to the Chief Minister under the leadership of the Chief Secretary, the advice of the Advocate General will be sought. Then it will be submitted to the Supreme Court through Kerala's standing counsel. The court referred the case on January 16 for consideration by a three-member bench.

A government expert committee was constituted for field-level inspection following the agitations against alleged omission of private buildings and public institutions.

The report was prepared by considering the complaints of the people along with the field inspection. The committee collected details of establishments, houses and other structures within one kilometre of wildlife sanctuaries and national parks.

The report was submitted to the Chief Minister by expert committee convenor and additional chief secretary of forest department Dr. KR Jyotilal and members of the committee in the presence of minister A.K Saseendran. The report will be published on the government website.

Wayanad with most constructions

Most number of constructions in Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary limits: 20,045

Lowest in Karimpuzha Wildlife Sanctuary limits: 77

Of the total construction, 52,376 are owned by individuals

There are public wells and eco-tourism buildings

519 educational, 175 health institutions, 40 banks, 455 farms

Government's hope

1. The Expert Committee's report may convince the Supreme Court regarding Kerala's population density in the buffer zone and the practical difficulties in implementing a one kilometre zone around wildlife sanctuaries.

2. The Supreme Court had indicated that it would allow relaxation in the one kilometre condition. The earlier order was related to protected areas in Rajasthan. The court also said that mining was the considered criteria.