Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67614

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, JJ
Sarootham Padmanabhan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P.Nos.26182, 33129 of 2023 | W.P.Nos.1492, 1637, 1777, 1945, 2667, 2815, 3941, 4448, 6779, 7444, 8326, 12687, 23499, 23502, 23521, 23526, 23528, 23532, 23536, 24928, 27450, 28073, 28505, 28995, 33012, 34953, 34956, 34960, 34964, 34969, 35966, 25371, 25395, 25398, 25405, 25412, 25414, 25457, 25464, 28949, 22933, 27924 of 2024 | W.P.Nos.18143, 9790, 23478, 25501, 27892, 29658, 30075 of 2025 | W.P.Nos.3073, 24984 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sharath Chandran, Ms. Jayna Kothari, Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, Mr. T. Gowthaman, Mr. Salman Khurshid, Mr. A. Mohamed Ismail, Ms. J. Priscilla Pandian, Mr. V. Raghavachari, Mr. Om Prakash
For the Respondents: Mr. J. Ravindran, AAG, Mr. Karthikei Balan, Standing Counsel (R1) Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP, Mr. V. Chandrasekaran, SPC

The court emphasized the need to prioritize ecological preservation over commercial interests in sensitive wildlife areas and directed the state to proceed with acquiring private lands within elephant corridors.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 - Sections 2, 3, 4-A and 6 - Forest Conservation Act, 1980 - Elephant corridors - Petitioners contesting demolition of resorts in notified elephant corridors - Inquiry Committee appointed by Supreme Court determined that petitioners' properties fall within elephant corridors and upheld sealing of establishments originally mischaracterized as residential - Court ruled significant commercial activity in protected areas is impermissible, stressing ecological preservation and the necessity of preserving elephant migratory routes, ordering the State to acquire private lands in the region. (Paras 57, 59, 100, 101)

(B) Judicial Authority - Diligence required in handling actions affecting land classified for wildlife conservation - The Inquiry Committee must adhere strictly to its jurisdiction and avoid making determinations on title. (Paras 64, 68, 84)

Table of Content
1. writ petitions challenging the inquiry committee findings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. background of project elephant and identification of corridors. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. constitution and role of the inquiry committee. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. details of specific writ petitions and petitioners' claims. (Para 11 , 12)
5. arguments regarding the legality of actions against petitioners. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. arguments on rights, ownership, and permissions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
7. court's concerns on inspection process and findings. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
8. arguments against the reasoning of the inquiry committee. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
9. discussion on eco-sensitive zone regulations. (Para 35 , 36)
10. emphasis on the necessity of avoiding commercial activities. (Para 37 , 38)
11. arguments about land ownership. (Para 39 , 40)
12. official positions and responses related to land use. (Para 41 , 42 , 43)
13. justice and ecological considerations in legal decision-making. (Para 44 , 45 , 46)
14. conclusion of inquiry outcome and rulings. (Para 47 , 48)

COMMON ORDER

The petitions in WMP.Nos.3073, 24984 of 2024 & 26344, 10972 of 2025 have been filed to permit the petitioners therein to file single writ petition. These petitions are ordered.

2. All these writ petitions challenge the findings of the Inquiry Committee constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.3438 to 3439 of 2020 vide order dated 14.10.2020 to hear the objections of the individuals claiming to be aggrieved by the actions of the District Collector, The Niligiris with regard to plan of action report and twin action taken reports; regarding the variance in acreage and sealing of the resorts arbitrarily despite approvals and title and also the demolition orders passed by the concerned Executive Authority.

3. The petitioners are either the owners of the resort/guest houses or the owners of the land in and around the The Niligiris Forest area.

BACKGROUND

4. The Government of India launched a scheme titled "Project Elephant" in the year 1992 to provide financial and technical support of wildlife management efforts by States for their free ranging populations of Wild Asian Elephants. Under this scheme, with a view to minimize the incidents of man-animal conflict and to have effective control to check poaching, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India by its proceedings No.2-15/2002-PE dated 11.08.2006 requested the Government of Tamil Nadu to take necessary action for notification and protection of the identified elephant corridors in the State. Pursuant to the same, the Government of Tamil Nadu under G.O.Ms.No.93, Environment and Forests Department dated 21.08.2007 had appointed a committee to explore the possibility of acquiring the patta lands with the willingness of the farmers, who can spare their lands for elephant corridors.

5. In this backdrop, an organisation named In Defence of Environment and Animals filed a writ petition in W.P.No.10098 of 2008 seeking to keep the elephant corridors free from encroachment and to prevent any other disturbances to the free movement of elephants and other animals. While things stood thus, Hospitality Association of Mudumalai filed an impleading application contending that they had been providing hospitality services to tourists and there had been no human animal conflict, since there is little or no agriculture and the elephants can freely move around throughout the area. An Expert Committee was constituted to find out the elephant corridor in the Sigur Plateau in The Niligiris region and thereafter, published a proposed elephant corridor as identified by the Expert Committee and the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010 specifying the boundaries of the elephant corridor and the Survey Nos falling within the said corridor.

6. This Court, on consideration of the facts and circumstances vide order dated 07.04.2011 in W.P.Nos.10098 of 2008 and o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67614

The court emphasized the need to prioritize ecological preservation over commercial interests in sensitive wildlife areas and directed the state to proceed with acquiring private lands within elephant corridors.

Cases Referred (2)