A permissive occupant of land owned by the Auroville Foundation lacks the legal right to challenge a lease deed or stall developmental decisions made by the Governing Board regarding land utilization, as the Board possesses statutory authority to manage and administer its properties for the public good.

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to cancel the lease deed dated 23.12.2025 bearing Document No.9407/2025 signed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent transferring by way of lease 100.01 acres of land at Pulichapallam Village for a tenure of thirty three (33) years and for a consideration of Rs.1.

ORDER

Assailing the lease deed in and by which lands in which farm lands have been developed by Annapurna Farm have been given to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner, who is a resident of the locality and who is presently actively involved in the activities of the Farm has filed the present writ petition before this Court.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a resident of Auroville along with other residents which belongs to Auroville Foundation. The Farm has been in existence in an extent of about 135 acres since 1960 and has been into organic farming and is catering to the needs of the entire residents of Auroville. Whileso, the 1st respondent had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (for short ‘MoU’) with respondents 2 and 3 for providing incubation services to start-ups mainly in the domain of sustainable technologies and for which 100.01 acres were earmarked for use, which is out of the 135 acres, which is under the cultivation of Annapurna Farms. On the basis of the MoU, Annapurna Farms were to relocate its operations to the remaining 34 acres, which were not intended to be leased to the 2nd respondent and inspite of the urgency highlighted, the authorities failed to provide any proper timeline for relocation of all operations in the Farm as also for shifting of residents and livestock and rehabilitation of workers.

3. It is the further averment of the petitioner that inspite of the meeting which was held between the 1st respondent and the residents and the Farm to formulate a transition plan in which the Farm was to be relocated to the Green Belt under the Master Plan and though several concerns were raised about the sustainability and self-sufficiency in which assurance was given that all such things would be taken care of at the time of relocation. Inspite of the review undertaken by the petitioner and her colleagues for relocation of the Farm, it was found to be unfeasible due to the large scale agriculture being done and though this was brought to the notice of the 1st respondent, however, there was no response and there was only lackadaisical conduct on the part of the authorities.

4. It is the further averment of the petitioner that without considering the issues raised by the petitioner and the other persons, who were connected with the farming activities and also the feasibility in the movement of the Farm, the same was not considered in proper perspective and the 1st and 2nd respondents entered into the impugned lease deed on 23.12.2025 and neither the Secretary of the 1st respondent Foundation nor the General Body was informed about the lease deed and it was entered into by a person, who was not authorized to enter into the same.

5. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the signing of the lease deed had made the 2nd respondent freely accessible to the Farm, which has caused grave collapse of the food self-sufficiency and sustainability and there is clear violation of Article 21 and it also violates the fundamental rights of the residents of Auroville and it is also gravely affecting the workers employed in the Farm not to say adversely impacting the ecosystem.

6. It is the further averm