Resorts Barred In Segur Plateau Elephant Corridor, Land May Be Used Only For Eco-Friendly Purposes: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has upheld the findings of a Supreme Court-appointed committee, declaring as null and void the land bought by the resort owners in the Segur plateau, in the Western Ghats area that had been declared as an Elephant corridor.The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy agreed with most of the findings of the committee except that the land that...
The Madras High Court has upheld the findings of a Supreme Court-appointed committee, declaring as null and void the land bought by the resort owners in the Segur plateau, in the Western Ghats area that had been declared as an Elephant corridor.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy agreed with most of the findings of the committee except that the land that was purchased subsequent to the declaration of the elephant corridor be handed over to the Government.
The court noted that the Government Order, which established the Elephant corridor, also stated that the notification regarding the elephant corridor was only for managing the activity in the zone and had nothing to do with the possession, legal ownership, and the rights of the petitioners. Thus, the court opined that as long as no commercial activity was being carried out, there would not be any problem for persons to continue enjoying the land.
The court opined that there was no impediment in using the property in an eco-friendly manner, for agriculture, plantation, and similar activities.
“Therefore, even assuming that the title has not been validated in view of the permission not being granted to the petitioners under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act (TNPPF Act), the fact remains that the persons who are in possession of the properties on their own, though the sale is not valid, such persons cannot be dispossessed. The main object of the Act is only to prevent the commercial activities in the corridor, particularly, running of large scale resorts by using barbed wires etc., When the property is used for agricultural purposes or plantation, that can be continued in eco friendly methods by the persons by not disturbing the wildlife. We are of the view that there cannot be difficulty for the persons who are enjoying the property, but at the same time under the pretext of legal ownership and right, one cannot be permitted to do commercial activities,” the court said.
Background
The Madras High Court, in 2011, had upheld the validity of a notification issued by the Tamil Nadu government in 2010 declaring the Elephant Corridor in Segur Plateau. The government notification also contained the Survey number of the lands which came under the Elephant Corridor. The court had directed the resort owners and other private landowners to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the lands falling within the notified elephant corridor.
The Hospitality Association of Mudumalai challenged this order in the Supreme Court, contending that the notified elephant corridor did not align with the historical elephant movement patterns and that their lands did not fall within the scientifically recognised elephant corridor. It was also argued that there was a variance in acreage between the recommendation of the expert committee formed by the court and the government order.
The Supreme Court upheld the notification and established a three-member committee headed by a retired High Court judge to address the individual objections of persons claiming to be aggrieved. The committee had declared that since the vendors of the resort owners had not taken prior permission from the committee constituted under the land to sell or alienate the land declared as private forests, the sale was null and void. These findings have now been challenged by resort and land owners in the area. Following the findings of the Inquiry Committee, the local authorities ordered the demolition of the buildings constructed on the land that came under the Elephant corridor. These demolition orders were also challenged in the pleas contending that the local authorities did not have the power to issue the demolition orders.
It was argued that the committee had exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring the title of the resort owners as void under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act 1949. The petitioners pointed out that the jurisdiction of the committee, as per the order of the Supreme Court was limited to adjudication of grievances against actions taken by the Nilgiris District Collector pursuant to the Government Order and not to enforce the Act or notification under it.
It was submitted that the committee, which was constituted to hear individual grievances against action of the District Collector as outlined in the twin action report, had instead ventured to prosecute the resort owners in its own right under a different notification whose validity is under challenge.
The owners thus argued that the findings of the committee were not only arbitrary but also ultra vires the terms of reference issued by the Apex Court.
The State, on the other hand, submitted that the methodology adopted for determining the corridor was systematic and scientifically driven. It was submitted that the finding was based on factors like historical usage of the path by elephants, presence of a viable buffer area, adequacy of water sources, etc.
The Additional Advocate General also submitted that the petitioners' resorts had obtained approval from the local bodies without obtaining the requisite sanction from the competent authorities. It was submitted that the petitioners had not obtained mandatory permission under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act and the Forest (Conservation) Act, which provides the preconditions for any activity within or abutting the forest land.
The court noted that in many cases, the parties had obtained permission for using the area as residential premises, but had later carried on commercial activities. The court underlined that commercial activities could not be permitted in the area, causing hindrance to the movement of elephants. The court thus refused to interfere with the demolition order, which was passed by the Executive Officer/local authorities based on the order of the Inquiry Committee. However, with respect to other directions where the committee had recommended handing over the land to the government, the court disagreed with it and said that the parties who had purchased the lands and were using them for agricultural purposes could continue to do so.
The court also criticised the government for failing to acquire the private lands even after accepting the findings of the committee. The court added that if the government, as per its prior undertaking, had acquired the properties on time, none of the problems would have arisen. The court added that it was important for the government to balance the need to protect the elephants' movement along with the rights of the parties.
“Therefore, we are of the definite view that if such acquisition was made at the relevant time, all these problems would not have arisen at all and the rights of the parties would have been taken care of. Having notified the elephant corridor which is the need of hour to protect the elephants' movement, at the same time, the Government has to balance the rights of the parties also. The Government cannot be a mute spectator. Allowing the persons to continue in possession of the property when the entire area has been notified and since all the barbed wires, electric fences have been removed, it will be an additional difficulty for them to even carry on agriculture, plantation etc., which will lead to the situation that the property cannot be used by the owners for any purpose other than commercial activities,” the court said.
The court noted that after notifying the area and removing the electric fences for free movement of elephants, it would be difficult for the persons to continue being in possession of the property for agriculture, plantation, etc. Thus, the court said that it would be appropriate for the government to take over the properties. Therefore, the court asked the state to initiate the acquisition proceedings and complete the same within 6 months.
Case Title: Sarootham Padmanabhan v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
Case No: W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases