"Serious Matter": Madras High Court Restrains Real Estate Company From Carrying Out Construction Activities In Alleged RAMSAR Site
The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained Brigade Enterprises Limited, a real estate company, from carrying out any further constructions at the Pallikaranai marshlands, which has been alleged to be a RAMSAR site. Ramsar sites are wetlands deemed to be of international importance under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat....
The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained Brigade Enterprises Limited, a real estate company, from carrying out any further constructions at the Pallikaranai marshlands, which has been alleged to be a RAMSAR site.
Ramsar sites are wetlands deemed to be of international importance under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan was hearing the writ petition filed by J Brezhnev, the Legal Wing District Secretary, Chennai Suburban District of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK). The petition was filed to challenge the planning permission granted to the builders for constructing a high-rise residential building complex.
The bench noted that the Supreme Court had already taken cognisance of the matter regarding the protection of wetlands/marshlands and had directed the States to conduct inspections and identify the wetlands in the State.
The court highlighted that the inspections had not been conducted yet, and while the matter was pending, the builders were being permitted to continue construction by modifying the land. Perusing the map submitted by the petitioners, giving details of the area, the court noted that on the face of it, the area appeared to be a wetland and any further construction would affect the land.s
“It's a serious matter. The Supreme Court is seized of the matter. Reports have not been filed. In the meantime, they're rushing to complete the project. Marshland is being affected. If any damage is done, it can't be reversed. On the face of it, it appears to be a wetland. Continued construction is affecting the land,” the court orally remarked.
The court directed the State to conduct a ground truthing in compliance with the orders of the Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, for protection of the wetlands, the court was inclined to temporarily restrain the real estate company from carrying out any construction in the area.
“In order to ensure that any wetland is not allowed to be destroyed by any construction activity, the 8th respondent should not proceed with any further work till the next date of hearing,” the court said in its order.
The petitioner submitted that the Pallikaranai marshland was designated as a Ramsar Site in 2022, after noting that the area acts as an aquatic buffer for Chennai and surrounding districts, absorbing flood waters and releasing them during dry spells.
The petitioner had alleged that the State, in connivance with the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Wetland Authority, granted approval for development activities within the Marshlands of Ramsar site, acting against the public interest and against environmental norms. It was argued that the CMDA, which granted the permit, had no authority or jurisdiction to grant approval or permit conversion of Marshlands that fall within the Ramsar site, and which was protected under the National and International Convention on Wetlands.
The petitioner submitted that the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), on January 9, 2025, granted permission for environmental impact assessment and, thereafter, on January 20, granted environmental clearance. Following this, the CMDA gave building permission within 3 days. The petitioner argued that the clearance given by the SEIAA and the CMDA was directly against the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules 2017, which clearly states that marshlands cannot be converted for any non-wetland use and no permanent construction could be permitted. Thus, the petitioner argued that the approval granted by the authorities was illegal, arbitrary, and actuated by mala fide intent.
The State, on the other hand, argued that the area for which the approval was granted was not falling within the marshlands and was actually dry land. The State also informed the court that it was conducting ground truthing to identify the exact extent of area that would fall within the marshlands.
The company submitted that it had already undertaken the project and if any interim order was granted, it would affect the development of the project.
The court, noting that the State was yet to conduct an inspection as per the orders of the Supreme Court, directed the State to conduct ground truthing restrained the company from continuing the construction activity.
Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Raghavachari
Counsel for Respondents: Advocate General PS Raman, Additional Advocate General J Ravindran,
Case Title: J Brezhnev v. The Chief Secretary and Others
Case No: WP 41380 of 2025