Dsp thrissur ch8

<< CHAPTER 7 < CONTENTS >
District Spatial Plan - Thrissur URBAN PROFILE 113

Chapter – 8
URBAN PROFILE

In this chapter the trend of urbanization of 2001. The population figures of the State as per census
Thrissur District is assessed and is compared with the 2001 are shown in the Table 8.1.
level of Urbanization of the State so as to ascertain the
There is an increase of about 400% in the total
position of the District in the State scenario.
population of Kerala within a century. During this pe-
8.1 TREND OF URBANIZATION – KERALA riod rural population has increased by 300 %. Rural
population content in Kerala has declined from 92.89%
At the turn of the 21st century, Kerala had a popu-
to 74% of the total population within a century. This is
lation of 63.96 lakhs, of which 59.42 lakhs were in its
an indication on the trend of urbanization in Kerala that
rural areas as per Census 2001. This constituted 92.89%
has happened in a century.
of the total population of the state. At the end of the

Table 8.1: Population (2001) of Kerala at a glance
2001
Person Males Females Growth rate

Total 31838619 15468664 16369955 9.42
Rural 23571484 11450785 12120699 10.05
Urban 8267135 4017879 4249256 7.64

Source: Census of India - 2001

20th century the total population in Kerala has in- The population figures of the immediate past, ie
creased to 3.18 crores (31838619) of which rural popu- last three decades are analyzed here (see table 8.2).
lation is 2.35 crores. This means that the rural popula-
There is a steady decline in the population growth
tion constitutes about 74% of the total population in
rate over the last three decades. Population growth rate

Table 8.2: Trends of population growth of Kerala - 1981-2001
Year Total population Growth rate of Growth rate in urban
total population population

1981 25453680 19.24% 37.64%
1991 29098518 14.32% 60.97%
2001 31838619 9.42% 7.64%

Department of Town & Country Planning, Kerala

114 URBAN PROFILE District Spatial Plan - Thrissur

was 19.24% in 1981 and it reduced to 9.42% in 2001. But the urban population growth rate has drasti-
During the period 1981-91 population of 36.45 lakhs cally declined to 7.64% in 2001 with a decrease of 87.5
were added to the previous decades population, % over the preceding decadal urban population growth
whereas during the period 1991-2001, population of rate. At the same time the growth rate in total popula-
only 27.4 lakhs were added within. The growth rate of tion has decreased from 14.32 % to 9.42% only with a
urban population of Kerala over the last three de- decrease rate of 34.2%. This indicates that over the last
cades shows that it is in a transition phase. Over the three decades there is spread effect of population into
last two decades (1971-81 and 1981-91) growth rate in the rural area. This is an indication to the planners to
urban population was on the rise, 37.64% in 1981 and take the planning of rural areas seriously than before
60.97% in 1991. (see table 8.3). and subsequently address the reasons for the spread

Table 8.3: Trends in urbanization of Kerala - 1981-2001
Percentage of Growth rate of Growth rate in
Year Total Urban urban total urban
Polpulation Population Population Population Population

1981 25453680 4771275 18.74 19.24 37.64
1991 29098518 7680294 26.39 14.32 60.97
2001 31838619 8267135 25.97 9.42 7.64

Fig 8.1: Urban area of Thrissur District

effect of population to rural areas. Census Town, Iringapurom Census Town, Thaikkad Cen-
sus Town, Paluvai Census Town, Pavaratty Census Town,
8.2 CENSUS URBAN AREAS IN THRISSUR DISTRICT Brahmakulam Census Town, Venmanad Census Town,
As per the 2001 census, the population of Thrissur Kolazhy Census Town, Pottore Census Town,
District is 2,974,232 which constitute about 9.34 % of Puranattukara Census Town, Nadathara Census Town,
the total population of the State. Of the total popula- Marathakkara Census Town, Avinissery Census Town,
tion of the district, 839433 is urban population. That is Palissery Census Town, Chevvoor Census Town,
28.2 % of the total population of the District is in the Vallachira Census Town, Methala Census Town,
urban areas of the District. There are thirty urban areas Nenmenikkara Census Town, Puthukkad Census Town,
viz, Thrissur Municipal Corporation, Kunnamkulam Koratty Census Town, Pookode Out Growth, and Eriyad
Municipal Council, Chavakkad Municipal Council, Out Growth, in the District as per 2001 census. The de-
Guruvayoor Municipal Council, Kodungallur Municipal tails are shown in figure 8.1 The details of census towns
Council, Irinjalakuda Municipal Council, Chalakudy is shown in table 8.4.
Municipal Council, Akathiyoor Census Town, Perakam

Table 8.4: Census Towns & Out growth in Thrissur District - 2001

Sl.No Name of Census Town Name of Grama Panchayat/ Wards numbers
Muncipal council
1 Akathiyyoor(C.T) Porkulam Ward No.4,5,6,7
2 Perakam(C.T) Pookode Ward No.8,9,10,11,12,13
3 Iringaprom(C.T) Pookode Ward No.3,4,5,6,7,8
4 Thaikkad(C.T) Thaikkad Ward No.2,3,4,5,6,7
5 Paluvai(C.T) Pavaratty Ward No.1,2,7,8,9,10
6 Pavaratty(C.T) Pavaratty Ward No.1,2,3,4,7,8,9,10
7 Brahmakulam(C.T) Elavally Ward No.1,2,9,10,11,12
8 Venmanad(C.T) Pavaratty Ward No. 4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11, 12
9 Kolazhy(C.T) Kolazhy Ward No. 4,5,6,7,8
10 Pottore(C.T) Kolazhy Ward No. 2,3,4,8,12,13
11 Puranattukkara(C.T) Adat Ward No. 7,8,9,12,13
12 Nadathara(C.T) Nadathara Ward No. 1,3,8,9,10,11
13 Marathakkara(C.T) Puthur Ward No. 12,13,14,15,16, 17,19
14 Avinissery(C.T) Avinissery Ward No.3,4,5,6,7,10
15 Palissery(C.T) Avinissery Ward No.1,2,8,9
16 Chevvoor(C.T) Cherpu Ward No.1,2,3,4,5,10, 11, 13
17 Vallachira(C.T) Vallachira Ward No.1,2,3,4,8,9,10
18 Methala(C.T) Methala Ward No.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,
9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17
19 Nenmanikkara(C.T) Nenmanikkara Ward No. 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11
20 Pudukkad(C.T) Pudukkad Ward No. 1,2,3,8,9,10,11
21 Koratty(C.T) Koratty Ward No. 1,2,3,4,5,12,
13,14,15,16
22 Pookode(O.G) Guruvayur Ward No.21
23 Eriyad(O.G) Kodungallur Ward No.25
Source: Census of India - 2001 Department of Town & Country Planning, Kerala

8.3 URBAN POPULATION CONTENT (EXISTING) It can be summarized that urban population has
The process of urbanization of an area can be as- increased by 236 % against an increment of 315% in the
sessed in relation to its urban population content. The extent of urban area. Urban population and urban area
urban population content of Kerala state is 26%, of the district increased during 1971-2001 period. But
whereas that of the District is 28.2%, which clearly points the increase in population is less than the increase in
out the fact that the process of urbanization in Thrissur the urban area. This indicates that there is a chance of
district is slightly more than that of average state fig- migration of further densification of the urban areas of
ure. On comparing the urban content of all the 14 Dis- Thrissur.
trict of the State, it can be seen that Thrissur District is
8.4 GROWTH RATE OF URBAN POPULATION
positioned in the 6th rank.
The graph (see fig 8.3) shows the decadal varia-
There is a steep increase (From 11.74% to 21.1%)
tion in the urban population of Thrissur District from
in the urban content of the total population for a pe-
1971 to 2001. The total urban population of the District
riod from 1971 to 1981. The urban area of the district
has increased from 249845 to 839433 in a period of four
during this period (1971-1981) shows an increase of
decades. The variation during this period was not uni-
131.87 sq km. The sudden surge in the urban popula-
form. A steady increase in the urban population is ob-
tion during this period correspond to this increase in
served from 1971 to 1991, but during the period from
area. A slight increase in the urban population and ur-
1991 to 2001 there is comparatively less increase in the
ban area is noted during the period from 1991 to 2001.
urban population.
(Table 8.5).

Table 8.5: Thrissur District - variation in urban content 1991-2001
Year Total Population Urban Population Percent of urban Urban area in
Population Sq. km
1971 2,128,877 249,845 11.74 83.43

1981 2,439,633 514,783 21.1 215.3

1991 2,737,311 720,216 26.31 301.2

2001 2,974,232 839,433 28.2 345.85

The increase in urban areas of the District as indi- The graph (see fig 8.4) shown below depicts the
cated in the corresponding years census figures, is growth rate of urban population against the growth rate
showed the fig 8.2. In 1971 the extent of urban area in of population over the last two decades in the District.
Thrissur District was 83.43 sq km, which has increased When the population growth rate of the District has
to 301.2 sq km in 1991. The increase of urban area of the declined from 12.21 to 8.66, the urban population
district was not uniform from 1971 to 2001, but the in- growth rate has declined from 39.9 to 16.55 during the
crease was high during the period from 1971 to 1981 same time period (1981 to 2001), indicating a possibil-
and from 1981 to 1991. There is only slight increase of ity of considerable reduction in the migration of popu-
urban area during the last decade, i.e. during the pe- lation to the urban areas of the District. The growth
riod 1991 –2001. rate of urban population is more than the growth rate


Fig 8.2: Extent of urban area of the District

of the district. There is a reduction in growth rate the Figure (fig 8.5) depicts the variation of popula-
rural and urban scenario, but it is found that the urban tion growth rate of various local government of Thrissur
areas exhibit faster growth indicating a constant mi- district. From the figure it is clear that growth rate is
gration to urban area. This may be due to the educa- maximum at Kunnamkulam Muncipal Council. Growth
tional, medical and Infrastructural facilities available rate of population of Thrissur Municipal Corporation is
in the urban areas of the district. less than the surrounding Grama Panchayats. But the


Fig 8.3: Total urban population during various decades

Table 8.6 compares the growth rate of urban popu- Grama Panchayats that are census towns show more
lation of the State and the District. This shows that there growth rate than the surrounding Grama Panchayats.
is a huge decline in the growth rate of urban popula- There are 11 census towns located near Thrissur Mu-
tion of Kerala; more or less the same decreasing pat- nicipal Corporation. Guruvayur Muncipal council and
tern is seen in Thrissur also, but the rate of decrease is Chavakkad Muncipal council show less growth rate than
just half that of the state. the surrounding Grama Panchayats. Grama Panchayat
parts of which are census towns via Akathiyoor Census


Table 8.6: Growth rate of urban population – Comparison with state
1981-91 1991-01

Kerala 60.89 % 7.69 %
Thrissur 39.9 % 16.55 %

Fig 8.4: Population Growth Rate- Comparison with District

Fig 8.5: Growth rate of population 2001- Local Govt. wise variation


Town, Perakam Census Town, Iringapuram Census slowly withdrawing from the primary sector and started
Town, Thaikkad Census Town, Paluvai Census Town, depending more on the service sector. Because of this
Brahmakulam Census Town, Kolazhy Census Town, shift in the occupational structure some of the rural
Pottore Census Town, Puranattukara Census Town, areas will be having more than 75% of the male work-
Marathakkara Census Town, Avinissery Census Town, ers in the non-agricultural category in the near future
Palissery Census Town, Vallachira Census Town, and hence will fall in the category of census urban.
Methala Census Town, Nenmenikkara Census Town, Hence there may be significant increase in the urban
Koratty Census Town, Pookode Out Growth and Eriyad population as well as in the extent of urban areas of
Out Growth show greater population growth rate. In the District in the future. In the following paragraphs,
general there is a chance of in migration of people to the future urban LSGs are delineated based on the
the urban areas from the rural areas. three fold census classification as per census 2001, and
the result is further iterated with the factors like im-
8.5 URBAN SETTLEMENTS – FROM 1971 TO 2001 pact of proposed urban development projects, grade
The number of urban settlements of the district of the LSGs and hierarchy of settlements.
was increasing from 1971 to 1991 (see table 8.7). In 2001,
Thrissur Municipal Corporation has been upgraded to CRITERIA-1: CENSUS URBAN AREA
Thrissur Municipal Corporation appending the adjoin- A study on the existing occupational structure in
ing the census urban settlements, thus there is decrease various settlements of the District will throw light on
in the total number of urban settlements of district the future urban profile of the district. The workers of
compared to the previous decade. But area wise there each settlement which are classified in to four fold clas-

Table 8.7: Urban settlements in different period of time

Census year Total number of Muncipal Muncipal Census Urban out Total urban
urban centres Corporation Towns Towns Growths area (Sq. Km)

1971 9 4 4 1 83.43
1981 26 6 19 1 215.3
1991 44 6 34 4 301.2
2001 30 1 6 21 2 345.85

Source: Census 2001

is an increase from 1991 to 2001 in the urban area. sification as per census 2001 are divided in to the fol-
lowing nine categories based on the workers classifica-
8.6 FUTURE URBANIZATION PROFILE OF THE DIS- tion in the 1991 census.
TRICT
1. Main Cultivators
The analysis of the occupational structure of the
2. Main Agricultural Labourers
District shows that the primary sector i.e., the agricul-
3. Livestock, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting, Planta-
ture sector, shows declining trend in the district. The
tion, Orchards, and allied activates
sectors, which show growth, are industrial and the ser-
4. Mining and Quarrying
vice sectors. More than 50% of the total urban popula-
5. Manufacturing, Processing, Servicing and
tion depends on the service sector for their lively hood.
repairs in Household industries
It is observed that rural areas of the district are also
6. Manufacturing, Processing, servicing and



repairs in other than household industries vicing and repairs in other than house hold industries,
7. Trade and commerce trade & commerce, transport, storage & communica-
8. Transport storage and Communications tion and others are totaled to calculate the percentage
of male workers in non-agricultural activities in each of
9. Others
the LSGs of the District. The details are shown in
The methodology adopted for the extrapolation Annexe-21. In order to avoid the possibility of errors,
to get the nine fold classification of workers in 2001 i.e. exclusion of some of the actual urban area, the ex-
based on the workers classification in census 1991 is trapolation of the data to get classification of workers
described briefly here. The only two types of workers based on 1991 census, is attempted only for the LSGs
included in both 1991 and 2001 census are the cultiva- with non-agricultural male workers more than 90% (in-
tors and agricultural laborers. The remaining two types stead of 75%) is taken for the study. Based on this, there
of workers in the 2001 census, house hold industrial are 45 LSGs identified in the District, which are satisfy-
workers and other workers are totaled together and ing the three-fold census criteria to be urban in imme-
this total is divided in to 7 classes of workers in the diate future. The list of which is given below and the
same proportion as these 7 classes of workers as there spatial location of these LSGs is shown in fig 8.6.
in the 1991 census. Then the number of male workers
1. Thrissur Municipal Corporation
in manufacturing, processing, servicing and repairs in
2. Methala
House hold industries, manufacturing, processing, ser- 3. Edavilangu

Fig 8.6: Urban Centers based on 3 fold Census Criteria

4. Eriyad 28. Pudukkad
5. Guruvayur Municipal Council 29. Thaikkad
6. Avinissery 30. Alagappanagar
7. Chavakkad Municipal Council 31. Edathiruthy
8. Irinjalakkuda Municipal Council 32. Kaiparamba
9. Kaipamangalam 33. Punnayur
10. Sreenarayanapuram 34. Kandanissery
11. Mathilakam 35. Elavally
12. Nenmanikkara 36. Vadakkekad
13. Pookode 37. Kadukkutty
14. Kodungallur Municipal Council 38. Adat
15. Perinjanam 39. Vellangallur
16. Kolazhy 40. Engandiyur
17. Chalakkudy Municipal Council 41. Mala
18. Valappad 42. Venkitangu
19. Thalikulam 43. Poyya
20. Cherpu 44. Mulamkkunnathukkavu
21. Nattika 45. Nadathara
22. Manalur
The classification of an area into urban depending
23. Kadapuram
24. Vadanappilly upon 9 fold classification of workers obtained out of a
25. Pavaratty mere extrapolation of the census 2001 data based on
26. Kunnamkulam Municipal Council the previous decades data can’t be taken as very accu-
27. Orumanayur

Fig 8.7: Urban Centers Based on Census Criteria & Grade of LSGs


rate. Though it gives a near accurate picture about the 19. Perinjanam
trend of urbanization, some other factors like the ex- 20. Mathilakam
tent of physical and economic development, future 21. Sreenarayanapuram
urban development projects and existing hierarchy of
22. Methala
settlements need to be considered.
23. Nenmanikkara
CRITERIA 2: GRADE OF LSGs
24. Alagappanagar
The grading of LSGs is done previously compar-
25. Vadanappilly
ing their physical and economical development. So, in
the absence of direct data to assess the physical and 26. Pudukkad
economic development, the grade of Grama Panchayat 27. Vellangallur
can be taken as a proxy indicator to measure the physi- 28. Mala
cal and economic development of the LSGs
29. Kadukkutty
Out of the 45 Grama Panchayats listed based on 30. Nadathara
criteria one, 24 are Special grade Grama Panchayts and
31. Vadakkekad
14 are first grade Grama Panchayats. The first grade
Grama Panchayats are excluded from the list. The re- Figure 8.7, shows the spatial location of these 31
maining LSGs are: LSGs. Before finalizing the future urban LSGs of the Dis-
trict, the urban development Projects of the District
and their possible impacts are also to be studied.
2. Guruvayur Municipal Council
3. Chavakkad Municipal Council CRITERIA: 3: PERSPECTIVES IN URBAN DEVELOP-
MENT
4. Irinjalakkuda Municipal Council
The major urban development projects envis-
5. Kodungallur Municipal Council
aged in the District as of now are the proposal for a
6. Chalakkudy Municipal Council Medical University in the Avanoor Grama Panchayat
7. Kunnamkulam Municipal Council where part of the existing medical college is function-
8. Valappad ing. This will obviously induce a tremendous develop-
ment impulse in this area.
9. Engandiyur
10. Edavilangu It is to be noted that Avanoor Grama Panchayat is
not included in the 31 LSGs listed as probable urban
11. Edathiruthy
LSGs of the District. So this local body is to be consid-
12. Venkitangu ered while listing the future urban LSGs. After the in-
13. Nattika clusion of this LSGs the number of LSGs in the select list
14. Pavaratty will increase to 32 as listed below and also shown in Fig
8.8.
15. Adat
16. Manalur
2. Guruvayur Municipal Council
17. Cherpu
3. Chavakkad Municipal Council
18. Eriyad
4. Irinjalakkuda Municipal Council


5. Kodungallur Municipal Council 21. Sreenarayanapuram
6. Chalakkudy Municipal Council 22. Methala
7. Kunnamkulam Municipal Council 23. Nenmanikkara
8. Valappad 24. Alagappanagar
9. Engandiyur 25. Vadanappilly
10. Edavilangu
26. Pudukkad
11. Edathiruthy
27. Vellangallur
12. Venkitangu
28. Mala
13. Nattika
29. Kadukkutty
14. Pavaratty
30. Nadathara
15. Adat
31. Vadakkekad
16. Manalur
32. Avanoor
17. Cherpu
18. Eriyad CRITERIA: 4: HIERARCHY OF SETTLEMENT

19. Perinjanam The hierarchy of the above 32 LSGs in the overall
context of the District are also to be taken in to account
20. Mathilakam
before finalizing the LSGs with urban character, be-
cause it is an indicator of the type and number of facili-

Fig 8.8: Urban Centers Based on Census Criteria, Grade of LSGs & Perspectives in Urban Development


ties in the LSGs. Annexe 10 shows the hierarchy of the lists of the probable urban LSGs are given below.
settlements and according to this, out of the 32 LSGs
listed above the following are in the category of LSGs
having the lowest hierarchy. 2. Guruvayur Municipal Council

1. Engandiyur 3. Chavakkad Municipal Council
2. Edathiruthy 4. Irinjalakkuda Municipal Council
3. Venkitangu
4. Nattika 5. Kodungallur Municipal Council
5. Perinjanam 6. Chalakkudy Municipal Council
6. Mathilakam
7. Kunnamkulam Municipal Council
7. Nenmanikkara
8. Alagappanagar 8. Valappad
9. Vadanappilly 9. Edavilangu
10. Vellangallur
10. Pavaratty
11. Kadukkutty
12. Nadathara 11. Adat
13. Vadakkekad 12. Manalur
14. Avanoor 13. Cherpu
These fourteen LSGs are to be excluded from the 14. Eriyad
list of the selected list of likely urban LSGs. The final

Table 8.8: Future urban profile of the District
Existing Urban area Future probable urban area

1. Thrissur Municipal Corporation 1. Valappad
2 Kunnamkulam Municipal Council 2. Edavilangu
3 Chalakkudy Municipal Council 3. Pavaratty
4 Irinjalakkuda Municipal Council 4 . Adat
5 Kodungallur Municipal Council 5. Manalur
6 Guruvayur Municipal Council 6. Cherpu
7 Chavakkad Municipal Council 7. Eriyad
8. Sreenarayanapuram
9. Methala
10. Pudukkad

11. Mala


15. Sreenarayanapuram ture.
16. Methala The pattern of growth rate of population among
the LSGs of the District as per census 2001 shows that
17. Pudukkad
the growth rate is the highest among those LSGs adja-
18. Mala cent to the Thrissur Municipal Corporation. And hence
Clearly the above local governments define the it can be presumed that those LSGs adjacent to the
future urban profile of the District. The likely future Thrissur Municipal Corporation and those along the
urban profile of the district evolved is shown in the National high way can be assumed to attain urban sta-
table 8.8 and the same is shown in fig 8.9 tus in the next 10 years and the remaining LSGs to be-
come urban within the next 20 years. In the study of
8.7 URBAN PROFILE the hierarchy of settlements Adat is positioned next to
All the 11 LSGs listed as probable future urban Thrissur Municipal Corporation. So this LSGs can be as-
LSGs can’t be expected to attain urban character in next sumed to attain urban nature in the first phase itself.
decade (2011) but only some of these will attain urban That means Adat, Pavaratty, Eriyad, Mala and Methala
character by the next decade and the remaining will will attain the status of urban LSGs in the next 10 years
attain urban character in the succeeding decade after where as all the other 6 LSGs will attain the urban sta-
that. The growth rate of population can be taken as tus within the next 20 years.
deciding criteria by how fast a LSGs attains urban na-
This is shown in Table 8.9.

Fig 8.9: Urban Future urbanization profile – Thrissur District



Table 8.9: Urban profile - Phasing

Sl No In the next 10 years In the next 20 years

1 Adat Edavilangu

2 Pavaratty Valappad

3 Eriyad Sreenarayanapuram

4 Mala Pudukkad

5 Methala Manalur

6 Cherpu

Table 8.10: Facilities in general to be provided
Order Name of the settlement Projected
Administrative status Facilities

1 Thrissur Municipal Corporation Urban LSG Higher order urban and
rural facilities

2 Irinjalakuda Municipal Council Urban LSG Higher order rural facilities
and middle order urban facilities

2 Chalakkudy Municipal Council Urban LSG Higher order rural facilities and
middle order urban facilities

2 Kunnamkulam Municipal Council Urban LSG Higher order rural facilities

2 Mattathur Rural LSG Higher order rural facilities

2 Chelakkara Rural LSG Higher order rural facilities

3 Kodungallur Municipal Council Urban LSG Higher order rural facilities

3 Wadakkanchery Rural LSG Middle order rural facilities
and Lower order urban facilities

3 Valappad Urban LSG Middle order rural facilities

3 Guruvayur Municipal Council Urban LSG Higher order rural facilities


3 Venkidangu Rural LSG Middle order rural facilities

3 Pananchery Rural LSG Middle order rural facilities

3 Alagappanagar Rural LSG Middle order rural facilities

8.8 FUNCTIONS (PROPOSED) TO BE PER- 8.9 INFERENCE
FORMED BY VARIOUS HIGHER ORDER SETTLE-
Thrissur District is more urbanized when com-
MENTS.
pared to the State. However the level of urbanization
The functions to be performed by various higher shows an inclining trend within the District. The urban
order settlements are derived based on their order, areas of the district show higher growth rate of popula-
administrative status, character of the settlements and tion whereas the rural areas surrounding the urban ar-
the service area. The result is summarized in table 8.10. eas show significantly lower growth rate indicating pos-
All the other LSGs will act as basic service cen- sible in migration of people to the urban areas from
ters. the surrounding rural settlements.


< CONTENTS > CHAPTER 9 >>

Dsp thrissur ch8

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (6)

Similar a Dsp thrissur ch8

Similar a Dsp thrissur ch8 (20)

Más de Naveen Francis

Más de Naveen Francis (10)

Último

Último (20)

Dsp thrissur ch8