Madras High Court
Sarootham Padmanabhan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2025
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar, D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
2025:MHC:2192
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 08.08.2025
Pronounced on : 12.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.Nos.26182, 33129 of 2023
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
1652, 18143, 9790, 23478, 25501, 27892, 29658, 30075 of 2025
and
W.M.P.Nos.38280 of 2023
1510, 1670, 1829, 2055, 2944, 3074, 4246, 4804, 7554, 8325, 8326, 9284, 13840,
13842, 25690, 25720, 25694, 25729, 27549, 25736, 29550, 25739, 29543, 25742,
25757, 25746, 27271, 29950, 30623, 31078, 31079, 31649, 31651, 35793, 37906,
37907, 37909, 37908, 37915, 37916, 37919, 37920, 37924, 37926, 38848, 38851,
27732, 27762, 27766, 27774, 27784, 27785, 27818, 27827, 31598, 24987, 24985,
30452, 30456 of 2024
1894, 20317, 10974, 26346, 26347, 28669, 28667, 31249, 31247 of 2025
and
WMP.Nos.3073, 24984 of 2024 & 26344, 10972, 33251, 33252, 33711, 33712 of
2025
WP.No.26182 of 2023
Sarootham Padmanabhan ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Environment, Climate Change and Forests Department
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009
2.The Segur Plateau Elephant Corridor Inquiry Committee
Page No.1 / 120
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
Represented by its Chairman
Forestry Extension Campus
Gymkhana Club Road
Finger Post, Udhagamandalam – 643 006
The Niligiris District, Tamil Nadu
3.The District Collector, The Niligiris District
Collectorate, Charring Cross
Udhagamandalam – 643 001
The Niligiris. ... Respondents
Prayer in WP.No.26182 of 2023: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of
the common order dated 19.08.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent in Case
No.19/2021 and to quash the same.
WP. 26182/2023
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1 And R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 33129/2023
Petitioner : Ms. Jayna Kothari, Senior Counsel Assisted By
Aparna Mehrotra And R. Rajagopalan and
Ms.B.Devadharshini for Mr. M. V. Swaroop
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravidran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1 And R2
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R3)
WP. 1492/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Rajagopal Vasudevan
Page No.2 / 120
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
Respondent : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1 And R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 1637/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran
for Mr.S. Ashok Kumar
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravidran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1 And R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 1777/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran
for Mr.S. Ashok Kumar
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravidran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1 And R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 1945/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran
for Mr.S. Ashok Kumar
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1 And R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 2667/2024
Petitioner : Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Sharath Chandran
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1 And R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 2815/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Ashok Kumar
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1 And R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
Page No.3 / 120
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
WP. 3941/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran
for Mr.S. Ashok Kumar
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1 And R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 4448/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran, AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1 And R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 6779/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran
for Mr.S. Ashok Kumar
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1 And R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 7444/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1 And R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 8326/2024
Petitioner : Mr. T. Gowthaman, Senior Counsel For
Mr. Muthucharan Sundresh
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP, GP For R1 And R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 12687/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran
for Mr.S. Ashok Kumar
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1 And R3
Page No.4 / 120
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 23499/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Salman Khurshid, Senior Counsel
Assisted By Mr. Zafar Khurshid Assisted By
Mr. Ramasamy Meiyappan
Respondents : Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R1)
Dr. G. Babu SPC For R2
Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R3, R4
WP. 23502/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Salman Khurshid, Senior Counsel
Assisted By Mr. Zafar Khurshid Assisted By
Mr. Muthucharan Sundresh
Respondents : Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R1)
Dr. G. Babu, SPC for R2
Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R3, R4
WP. 23521/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Salman Khurshid, Senior Counsel
Assisted By Mr. Zafar Khurshid Assisted By
Mr. P. Purushotham
Respondents : Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R1)
Dr. G. Babu SPCFor R2
Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R3, R4, R5
WP. 23526/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Salman Khurshid, Senior Counsel
Assisted By Mr. Zafar Khurshid Assisted By
Mr. P. Purushotham
Respondents : Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R1)
Dr. G. Babu SPC for R2
Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R3, R4, R5
WP. 23528/2024
Page No.5 / 120
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
Petitioner : Mr. Salman Khurshid, Senior Counsel
Assisted By Mr. Zafar Khurshid Assisted By
Mr. P. Purushotham
Respondents : Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R1)
Dr. G. Babu SPCFor R2
Mr. J. Ravindran, AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R3, R4, R5
WP. 23532/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Salman Khurshid, Senior Counsel
Assisted By Mr. Zafar Khurshid Assisted By
Mr. Ramasamy Meiyyappan
Respondents : Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R1)
Dr. G. Babu SPC for R2
Mr. J. Ravindran,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R3, R4
WP. 23536/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Salman Khurshid, Senior Counsel
Assisted By Mr. Zafar Khurshid Assisted By
Mr.Muthucharan Sundaresh
Respondents : Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R1)
Dr. G. Babu SPC For R2
Mr. J. Ravindran, AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R3, R4
WP. 24928/2024
Petitioner : Mr. T. Gowthaman, Senior Counsel For
Mr. MuthucharanSundresh
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1, R3, R4
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 27450/2024
Petitioner : Mr. P. Purushotham
Respondents : Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R1)
Page No.6 / 120
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
Mr. V. Chandrasekaran, SPC For R2
Mr. J. Ravindran, AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R3, R4, R5
WP. 28073/2024
Petitioner : Mr. P. Purushotham
Respondents : Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R1)
Mr. V. Chandrasekaran, SPC For R2
Mr. J. Ravindran, AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R3, R4, R5
WP. 28505/2024
Petitioner : Mr. V. Raghavachari, Senior Counsel For
Mr. V. Ponnappa Bharathi And
Ms. Annie Singh
Respondents : Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R1)
Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R2, R4, R5
Ms. J. Priscilla Pandian CGSSC For R3
WP. 28995/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1 And R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 33012/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1 And R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 34953/2024
Petitioner : Mr. A. Mohamed Ismail
Respondents : Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R1)
Mr. V. Chandrasekaran, SPC For R2
Page No.7 / 120
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R3, R4, R5
WP. 34956/2024
Petitioner : Mr. A. Mohamed Ismail
Respondents : Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R1)
Mr. V. Chandrasekaran, SPC For R2
Mr. J. Ravindran, AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R3, R4, R5
WP. 34960/2024
Petitioner : Mr. A. Mohamed Ismail
Respondents : Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R1)
Mr. V. Chandrasekaran, SPC For R2
Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R3, R4, R5
WP. 34964/2024
Petitioner : Mr. A. Mohamed Ismail
Respondent : Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R1)
Mr. V. Chandrasekaran, SPC For R2
Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R3, R4, R5
WP. 34969/2024
Petitioner : Mr. A. Mohamed Ismail
Respondents : Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R1)
Mr. V. Chandrasekaran, SPC For R2
Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R3, R4, R5
WP. 35966/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1 And R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
Page No.8 / 120
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
WP. 25371/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran For
Mr. Rajagopal Vasudevan
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1, R3, R4
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 25395/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Rajagopalan Vasudevan
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1, R3, R4
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 25398/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran For
Mr. Rajagopal Vasudevan
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1, R3, R4
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 25405/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran For
Mr. Rajagopal Vasudevan
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1, R3, R4
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 25412/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran For
Mr. Rajagopal Vasudevan
Respondent : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1, R3, R4
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 25414/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran For
Mr. Rajagopal Vasudevan
Page No.9 / 120
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1, R3, R4
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 25457/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran For
Mr. Rajagopal Vasudevan
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1, R3, R4
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 25464/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Rajagopalan Vasudevan
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1, R3, R4
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 28949/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran For
Mr. Rajagopal Vasudevan
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1, R3, R4
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 1652/2025
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran For
Mr. Rajagopal Vasudevan
Respondent : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1, R3, R4
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 18143/2025
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran For
Mr. Rajagopal Vasudevan
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP, For R1, R3, R4
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
Page No.10 / 120
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
WP. 9790/2025
Petitioner : Ms. Jayna Kothari, Senior Counsel Assisted By
Aparna Mehrotra And R. Rajagopalan and
Ms.B.Devadharshini for Mr. M. V. Swaroop
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP, For R1, R2, R4
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R3)
WP. 22933/2024
Petitioner : Mr. E. Om Prakash, Senior Counsel , Assisted By
Mr. R. Murali For Mr. R. Ragavendran
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP, For R1 And R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 23478/2025
Petitioner : Mr. K. Sharath Chandran
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP,For R1, R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 25501/2025
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran For
Mr. Rajagopal Vasudevan
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP,For R1, R2, R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 27892/2025
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran For
Mr. Rajagopal Vasudevan
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP For R1, R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 29658/2025
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran
Page No.11 / 120
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP, For R1, R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
WP. 30075/2025
Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Chandran
Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran ,AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP, For R1, R3
Mr. S. Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel (R2)
W.P.No.27924 of 2024
Petitioner : Mr. V. Raghavachari, Senior Counsel For
Mrs. V. Srimathi
Respondent : Mr. J. Ravindran, AAG Assisted By
Dr. T. Seenivasan SGP
Amicus Curiae : Mr.T.Mohan, Senior Counsel
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
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 others upheld the validity of the
Government Order of Tamil Nadu Government in G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
which had notified an Elephant Corridor in the Sigur Plateau of The Niligiris District
and has further directed resort owners and other private land owners to vacate and
hand over the vacant possession of the lands falling within the notified elephant
corridor to the District Collector, The Niligiris within three months from the date of
the order.
7. Challenging the order, the Hospitality Association of Mudumalai has filed
Civil Appeal.Nos.3438 to 3439 of 2020 (batch cases) contending that their lands do
not fall within a scientifically recognised elephant corridor and the notified corridor
was an artificial corridor that did not align with historical elephant movement
patterns. Further, there is a variance in acreage between the recommendation of the
Expert Committee formed by this Court and the Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in order
to protect the elephant population in the Sigur Plateau region, it was necessary and
appropriate for the State Government to limit commercial activity in the areas falling
within the elephant corridor. Allegations were made by the appellants that the
District Collector, The Niligiris had acted arbitrarily in sealing their resorts after
rejecting the documents submitted by the appellant, the District Collector went
beyond the scope of the directions, wherein, immediate removal of electric fences
and barbed wires was directed. It was also alleged that non-electric fences as well as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
fences beyond the notified elephant corridor area were removed by the District
Collector.
8. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed a 3-member Inquiry Committee
to decide the individual objections of persons claiming to be aggrieved by the
actions of the District Collector, The Niligiris pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.125 and as
recorded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court through the District Collector's plan of
action report and twin action taken reports. Accordingly, the above Civil Appeals
were disposed of on 14.10.2020.
9. In pursuance to the above judgment, the Inquiry Committee invited
objections from the persons aggrieved by the actions of the District Collector, The
Niligiris through a public notice calling for objections. Therefore, the petitioners had
filed their objections before the Segur Plateau Elephant Corridor Inquiry Committee,
however, it is their grievance that the Inquiry Committee has not considered their
objections and dismissed their cases.
10. Therefore, the petitioners challenging the order of the Inquiry Committee
have filed these writ petitions. As this Court had entertained a doubt as to the
maintainability of these writ petitions directed the parties to get clarifications from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellants therein filed MA.Nos.2108 – 2109 of
2024 seeking for clarifications in Civil Appeal Nos. 3438 – 3439 of 2020, wherein,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order 20.12.2024 has held as follows:
"The findings recorded in paragraphs no. 33 to 41 of the judgment
dated 14.10.2020 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3438-3439/2020, including on
the question of the elephant corridor, have attained finality and will not
be re-examined. The High Court may, however, examine the questions
which were to be considered and examined by the Inquiry Committee,
in terms of paragraphs no. 42, 43 and 44 of the said judgment. The
High Court will be at liberty to examine as to whether the Inquiry
Committee has gone beyond its remit. However, we clarify that by
examining the question of scope or the remit of the Inquiry Committee,
the findings recorded by this Court, including findings on issues and
contentions which could have been raised but were not raised by any of
the parties, will not be examined or decided by the High Court. It will
be open to the parties to request the High Court for expeditious
disposal of the pending writ petitions. Recording the aforesaid, the
miscellaneous applications are disposed of.”
11. It is also relevant to extract paragraphs 42, 43 and 44 of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.3438-3439 of 2020, which reads as
follows:
" 42. This brings us to the last limb of the submissions of the appellants,
which is comprised of factual objections to the acreage of the elephant
corridor as notified by the impugned G.O. and the actions taken by the
District Collector, The Niligiris in pursuance thereof. The appellants
have contended that there has been substantial variance between the
acreage recommended for acquisition by the Expert Committee Report
and the acreage in the impugned G.O. It is further alleged that the
acreage in the newspaper advertisement by the State Government
inviting objections to notification of the corridor is also different from
the acreage in the impugned G.O. As all the objections received
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
pursuant to the said newspaper advertisement were rejected by the
State Government and since the impugned G.O. purported to adopt the
recommendations of the Expert Committee, the appellants allege that
the said variance in acreage is arbitrary and unreasonable. It has also
been alleged that the District Collector, The Niligiris has acted
arbitrarily in sealing their resorts after rejecting the documents
submitted by the appellant resorts purporting to show approvals and
title. Similarly, it has been alleged that the District Collector went
beyond the scope of this Court’s order dated 24.12.2018 wherein
immediate removal of electric fences and barbed wire was directed. It is
the appellants’ case that non-electric fences as well as fences beyond
the notified elephant corridor area were removed by the District
Collector. We are of the view that it is just and proper to hold an
inquiry to establish the veracity of the above factual objections of the
appellants.
43. Therefore, we appoint a 3-member Inquiry Committee consisting of:
(i) Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Venkatraman, Former Judge of the Madras
High Court (Chairman); (ii) Mr. Ajay Desai, Consultant to World Wide
Fund for Nature-India and Member of the Technical Committee to
come up with a National Elephant Action Plan (NEAP), constituted by
the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
(MOEF&CC); and (iii) Mr. Praveen Bhargava, Trustee of Wildlife First
and Former Member of National Board for Wildlife to decide the
individual objections of the appellants and any other persons claiming
to be aggrieved by the actions of the District Collector, The Niligiris
pursuant to the impugned G.O. and as recorded before us through her
Plan of Action Report and her twin Action Taken Reports, as also the
allegations regarding arbitrary variance in acreage of the elephant
corridor under the impugned G.O. The State Government is directed to
consult the Chairman of the Inquiry Committee and pay remuneration
to him and the other Members of the Inquiry Committee. Further, we
direct the State Government to provide appropriate secretarial
assistance and logistical support to the Inquiry Committee for holding
the inquiry within four weeks from today.
44. We leave it to the discretion of the Inquiry Committee to decide the
location for its inquiry proceedings. We also authorize the Inquiry
Committee to appoint requisite staff on temporary basis to assist the
Committee in the inquiry and to fix their salaries. The State
Government is directed to pay their salaries. The State Government and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
the district level authorities are directed to provide their full
cooperation and produce any and all files/documents required by the
Inquiry Committee to address the grievances of the appellants and any
other persons claiming to be similarly aggrieved. The appellants and
other persons claiming to be aggrieved by the plan of action/actions of
the District Collector, The Niligiris pursuant to the impugned G.O. and
the allegations regarding variance in acreage under the impugned G.O,
are permitted to file objections containing their grievances before the
Inquiry Committee within a period of four months from today. The
Inquiry Committee is directed to consider the objections filed before it
and pass appropriate orders thereon after granting the parties a
reasonable opportunity of being heard. The parties are also permitted
to file documents in support of their respective contentions before the
Inquiry Committee".
12. In compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, these writ
petitions are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by way of this common order.
For the sake of clarity, the facts of the individual writ petitions and grounds of
rejection of their claim by the Inquiry Committee are set out hereunder:
FACTS
It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property is purchased by his
mother and the revenue records were mutated in her favour. Approval for
construction of building was granted by the Executive Officer, Sholur Panchayat.
Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the third respondent to
lock and seal resorts/commercial establishments, the subject property was locked and
sealed. Before the Inquiry committee, the petitioner filed his objection on
19.08.2023 stating that his survey number No.114/1 was not included in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010 and the petitioner is operating the premises
exclusively for residential purposes, the second respondent without considering the
fact that the petitioner's property is not notified in the corridor and the relevant
materials has held that boundary description as contained in the notification will
prevail, irrespective of whether a survey number is indicated or not. The petitioner
has not obtained permission under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act and
declared the sale as null and void. Further, held that the petitioner was operating a
commercial resort and dismissed the case of the petitioner. Challenging the said
order, the present writ petition.
It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property is purchased by
M/s.Vijayalakshmi Rajasekhar and brought into the stock of the registered
partnership firm Templars and revenue records were mutated in their favour. Taxes,
duties, charges and fees were being paid regularly to the statutory authorities.
Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the third respondent to
lock and seal resorts/commercial establishments, the subject property was locked and
sealed on 12.08.2018.
The petitioner before the Inquiry Committee filed an objection on 14.10.2020,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
wherein, the Inquiry Committee declared the title deeds of the petitioner as null and
void and the survey number is notified in the G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010; the
property is used for commercial purpose and the buildings are constructed without
any approval from the appropriate authority. Challenging the said order, the present
writ petition.
It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property is purchased by his
father and the revenue records were mutated in his favour. Pursuant to the order of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the third respondent to lock and seal
resorts/commercial establishments, the subject property was locked and sealed.
Before the Inquiry committee, the petitioner filed his objection stating that his farm
house is actually a residential property and not an unauthorized construction. The
above land was purchased even before the notification of G.O.Ms.No.125 dated
31.08.2010.
The second respondent without considering the fact that the petitioner's
property is a residential premises has held that as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 3 of the TNPPF Act, alienation or sale of land is null and void and the
subject land is notified in the corridor; further the land falls within the elephant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
corridor and the building has been constructed without obtaining the requisite
permission, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to obtain permission under
Section 3(1)(a)(b) of TNPPF Act and file a fresh affidavit accepting all the condition
insisted upon the District Collector and disposed of the objection. Challenging the
said order, the present writ petition.
It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property is purchased by his
father and revenue records were mutated in his favour. After the death of the
petitioner's father, the petitioner is using the property for his residential purposes.
Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the third respondent to
lock and seal resorts/commercial establishments, the subject property was locked and
sealed. Before the Inquiry committee, the petitioner filed his objection stating that
his farm house is actually a residential property and not an unauthorised
construction. The above land was purchased even before the notification of
G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010.
The second respondent without considering the fact that the petitioner's
property is a residential premises has held that as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 3 of the TNPPF Act, alienation or sale of land is null and void; the subject
land is notified in the corridor and the building has been constructed without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
obtaining approval from the appropriate authority. Challenging the said order, the
present writ petition.
It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property is purchased by his
father and revenue records were mutated in his favour. Pursuant to the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the third respondent to lock and seal
resorts/commercial establishments, the subject property was locked and sealed.
Before the Inquiry committee, the petitioner filed his objection stating that his farm
house is actually a residential property and not an unauthorised construction. The
above land was purchased even before the notification of G.O.Ms.No.125 dated
31.08.2010.
The second respondent without considering the fact that the petitioner's
property is a residential premises has held that as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 3 of the TNPPF Act, alienation or sale of land is null and void and the
subject land is notified in the corridor. Thereafter, the fourth respondent has issued a
demolition order. Challenging the demolition order, the present writ petition.
It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property is purchased in the year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
2001 and after obtaining building license from the Executive Authority and NOC
from the DFO had constructed a residential building. Thereafter, adjacent properties
were purchased. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the
third respondent to lock and seal resorts/commercial establishments, the subject
property was locked and sealed. Before the Inquiry committee, the petitioner filed
his objection stating that the petitioner has given letters to the respondent District
Collector seeking removal of company name and permitting it to use it is a
residential building. The above land was purchased even before the notification of
G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010.
The second respondent without considering the fact that the petitioner's
property is a residential premises has held that as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 3 of the TNPPF Act, alienation or sale of land is null and void and the
subject land is notified in the corridor and also the building plan approvals are not in
accordance with law. Challenging the order of the Inquiry Committee, the present
writ petition has been filed.
It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property is purchased in the year
1994 and revenue records were mutated in his favour. Pursuant to the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the third respondent to lock and seal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
resorts/commercial establishments, the subject property was locked and sealed.
Before the Inquiry committee, the petitioner filed his objection on 08.02.2021 stating
that his survey number was not included in G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010.
The second respondent without considering the fact that the petitioner's
property is not notified in the corridor and the relevant materials has held that
boundary description as contained in the notification will prevail, irrespective of
whether a survey number is indicated or not. Further, held that petitioner was
operating a commercial resort and the seal has been made lawfully after issuing a
show cause notice. Further, the petitioner has not obtained permission as
contemplated under the TNPPF Act, hence, as per Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 3 of the TNPPF Act, the sale of the land shall be treated as null and void.
Challenging the said order, the present writ petition.
It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property is purchased in the year
2005 and revenue records were mutated in his favour. Pursuant to the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the third respondent to lock and seal
resorts/commercial establishments, the subject property was locked and sealed.
Before the Inquiry committee, the petitioner filed his objection on 08.02.2021 stating
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
that his survey number was not included in G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010.
The second respondent without considering the fact that the petitioner's
property is not notified in the corridor and the relevant materials has held that the
boundary description as contained in the notification will prevail, irrespective of
whether a survey number is indicated or not. Further, held that the petitioner was
operating a commercial resort and the property has been sealed lawfully after issuing
a show cause notice. Further, the petitioner has not obtained permission as
contemplated under the TNPPF Act, hence, as per Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 3 of the TNPPF Act, the sale of the land shall be treated as null and void.
Challenging the said order, the present writ petition.
The petitioner purchased the property in the year 2000 and the petitioner was
granted with pre-existing building license and the same was granted by the
executive authority, Masinagudi. The property is a patta land consisting of three
buildings in existence for almost 100 years and the petitioner's family are residing in
the property for more than 150 years. The property is named as Wild Haven used for
residential premises. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
the third respondent to lock and seal resorts/commercial establishments, the subject
property was locked and sealed. Before the Inquiry committee, the petitioner filed
his objection on 09.02.2021 stating that the petitioner is a forest dweller as per the
provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and, therefore, he cannot be expropriated
from the subject property.
However, the second respondent without considering the relevant materials
has held that the boundary description as contained in the notification will prevail,
irrespective of whether a survey number is indicated or not. The petitioner has not
produced any permission from the Chairman of the Committee constituted under
TNPPF Act and thus, held that as per Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of
the TNPPF Act, the alienation/sale of the land shall be treated as null and void. The
petitioner has not produced prior permission under Section 2 of the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980. The petitioner was operating an unauthorised commercial
resort using residential building permission. Challenging the said order, the present
writ petition.
W.P.Nos.25371, 25395, 25398, 25405, 25412, 25414, 25457, 25464 of 2024 and
1652 of 2025
It is the case of the petitioners that the subject properties were purchased and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
revenue records were mutated in their favour. Licenses were granted to the
petitioners by the Panchayats. Taxes were remitted to the Government by the
petitioners. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the third
respondent to lock and seal resorts/commercial establishments, the subject properties
were locked and sealed. Before the Inquiry committee, the petitioners filed their
objection stating that the subject properties are actually residential properties and not
commercial resorts. The above lands were purchased even before the notification of
G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010.
The second respondent without considering the fact that the petitioners'
properties are residential premises has held that as per clause (b) of sub-section (1)
of Section 3 of the TNPPF Act, alienation or sale of land is null and void. Thereafter,
the fourth respondent issued demolition orders. It is the contention of the writ
petitioners that local body does not disclose any specific contraventions or
violations, instead, they merely referred to the findings of the Inquiry Comittee and
issued the demolition orders. Challenging the demolition orders, the present writ
petitions are filed.
It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property was purchased from one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
Mr.Harendra Kumar D'Silva and obtained approval for building a residential
property. Electricity bills have been paid for normal residential consumption. There
is no resort running in the schedule property. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court directing the first respondent to lock and seal resorts/commercial
establishments, the subject properties were locked and sealed. Before the Inquiry
committee, the petitioners filed their objection stating that another property in the
vicinity, i.e., property bearing D.No.9/496 and S.No.399/4A1 owned by Mr.Alok
Gupta was added in the plan of action, however, vide order dated 24.08.2015, the
same was rectified on the ground that electricity bills had low consumption charges.
However, the petitioner's property was not de-sealed.
The Inquiry Committee held that as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section
3 of the TNPPF Act, alienation or sale of land is null and void and dismissed.
Thereafter, the third respondent issued a demolition order dated 16.08.2024.
Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the
subject property by virtue of a sale agreement dated 21.10.2016 and since then the
petitioner is in possession of the same. Building plan was approved by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
Masinagudi Village Panchayat in 2007 and the schedule property is used for
residential purposes only. Electricity bills have been paid for normal residential
consumption. There is no resort functioning in the schedule property. Pursuant to the
order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the first respondent to lock and seal
resorts/commercial establishments, the subject property was locked and sealed.
Before the Inquiry committee, the petitioner filed their objection stating that another
property in the vicinity, i.e., property bearing D.No.9/496 and S.No.399/4A1 owned
by Mr.Alok Gupta was added in the plan of action, however, vide order dated
24.08.2015, the same was rectified on the ground that electricity bills had low
consumption charges.
However, the petitioner's property was not de-sealed and the Inquiry
Committee held that as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the TNPPF
Act, alienation or sale of land is null and void; construction was put up in violation
of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building
Rules, 1997; the lands of the objector falls within the elephant corridor and further,
the entire set up with the buildings were created by a corporate entity viz.,
Jamadagni Investments and Finance Pvt. Ltd not for bonafide residential purpose for
use of a guest house for commercial purpose; however granted an opportunity to the
petitioner to collect all the materials and transport it out of the property before action
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
is initiated as per the findings arrived by the Inquiry Committee. Challenging the
same, the present writ petition is filed.
It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner is the absolute owner of
the property by virtue of sale deed dated 21.02.2005, wherein, the petitioner has built
a small residential cottage. The schedule property is used for residential purposes
only. The buildings have been assessed to house tax not to GST or luxury tax.
Electricity bills have been paid for normal residential consumption. There is no
resort running in the schedule property. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court directing the third respondent to lock and seal resorts/commercial
establishments, the subject properties were locked and sealed. Before the Inquiry
committee, the petitioner filed his objection stating that the name of the owner of the
property was shown as M/s.Shilwa and Cherian incorrectly and the nature of the
property is residence and not a resort, house tax receipt, electricity bills, permissions
etc., were filed. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had filed an appeal under Section
80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act was allowed by the
Principal Secretary of the Housing and Urban Development Department holding that
the classification of the building is for residential purpose. However, the petitioner's
property was not desealed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
The Inquiry Committee held that as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section
3 of the TNPPF Act, alienation or sale of land is null and void and the land is
required to be treated as forest and it is within the elephant corridor. Challenging the
same and for a direction to the third respondent to deseal the premises of the
petitioner, the present writ petition is filed.
It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner is the absolute owner of
the subject property, wherein, the petitioner has built a small residential cottage. The
schedule property is used for residential purposes only. The buildings have been
assessed to house tax not GST or luxury tax. Electricity bills have been paid for
normal residential consumption. There is no resort running in the schedule property.
Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the third respondent to
lock and seal resorts/commercial establishments, the subject properies were locked
and sealed. Before the Inquiry committee, the petitioner filed his objection stating
that the name of the owner of the property was shown as M/s.Shilwa and Cherian
incorrectly and the nature of the property is residence and not a resort, house tax
receipt, electricity bills, permissions etc., were filed. In the meanwhile, the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
had filed an appeal under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country
Planning Act was allowed by the Principal Secretary of the Housing and Urban
Development Department holding that the classification of the building is for
residential purpose. However, the petitioner's property was not desealed.
The Inquiry Committee held that as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section
3 of the TNPPF Act, alienation or sale of land is null and void and the land is
required to be treated as forest and it is within the elephant corridor. In this
background, the fourth respondent has issued the impugned notice for demolition of
the buildings in the subject property. Challenging the demolition order, the present
writ petition has been filed.
It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner and her husband
purchased the schedule property vide sale deeds dated 16.05.1983 and 24.04.2000.
The petitioner is in possession of freehold ryotwari patta lands and the titles are
deemed to be in order, even though the lands are notified under the TNPPF Act vide
notification dated 15.11.1911. The petitioner is a founding member of the
Hospitality Association of Mudumalai and has preferred a writ petition in
WP.No.27312 of 2016 challenging the validity of notification dated 01.11.1991
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
issued under the TNPPF Act. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
directing the first respondent to lock and seal resorts/commercial establishments, the
subject properties were locked and sealed. Before the Inquiry Committee, the
petitioner filed his objection.
The Inquiry Committee held that the petitioner has not obtained permission
from the Committee constituted under TNPPF Act, 1949 to sell or alienate or
transfer the said lands, thus, as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the
TNPPF Act, alienation or sale of land is null and void. The petitioner has not
produced prior permission under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
Challenging the same, the present writ petition on various other grounds including
the Inquiry Committee has failed to consider the issue of acreage on the relevant
facts and issues and further, the even in the case of land being notified as private
forests, the rights preserved under the TNPPF Act would have to be harmonised with
the deemed provisions of the Conservation of Forest Act.
It is the case of the writ petitioner that his father had purchased the schedule
property vide sale deeds dated 03.07.1982, 26.08.1996, and his mother purchased the
schedule properties vide sale deeds dated 13.11.1984, 08.02.1985. The petitioner is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
in possession of freehold ryotwari patta lands and the titles are deemed to be in
order, even though the lands are notified under the TNPPF Act vide notification
dated 15.11.1911. The petitioner is a founding member of the Hospitality
Association of Mudumalai and has preferred a writ petition in WP.No.27312 of 2016
challenging the validity of the notification dated 01.11.1991 issued under the TNPPF
Act. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the first
respondent to lock and seal resorts/commercial establishments, the subject properties
were locked and sealed. Before the Inquiry Committee, the petitioner filed his
objection.
The Inquiry Committee held that the with regard to the 1 acre of land
purchased in the year 1996, the petitioner has not obtained permission from the
Committee constituted under the TNPPF Act, 1949 to sell or alienate or transfer the
said lands, thus, as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the TNPPF Act,
alienation or sale of land is null and void, however, other properties to an extent of
17.23 acres of land were held as in lawful possession. The petitioner has not
produced prior permission under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
Challenging the same, the present writ petition on various other grounds including
the Inquiry Committee has failed to consider the issue of acreage on the relevant
facts and issues and further, the even in the case of land being notified as private
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
forests, the rights preserved under the TNPPF Act would have to be harmonised with
the deemed provisions of the Conservation of Forest Act.
It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner has purchased the subject
property vide sale deed dated 18.01.2012 after obtaining the permission from the
Committee headed by the District Collector under the TNPPF Act. The subject
property is utilised for residential purpose and for the medical treatment of tribal
people and no commercial activity is undertaken in the said place. The subject
property does not come under the notified elephant corridor. Pursuant to the order of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the District Collector, The Niligiris to lock and
seal resorts/commercial establishments, the subject property was locked and sealed.
Before the Inquiry Committee, the petitioner filed its objection stating that the
electricity connection was changed from commercial to residential and no resort is
functioning and further, the property does not come under the elephant corridor.
Also stated that another property in the vicinity, i.e., property bearing D.No.9/496
and S.No.399/4A1 owned by Mr.Alok Gupta was added in the plan of action,
however, vide order dated 24.08.2015, the same was rectified on the ground that
electricity bills had low consumption charges. However, the petitioner's property was
not desealed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
The Inquiry Committee held that no permission was obtained for putting up
constructions under the TNPPF Act and the building is a full fledged resort. Further,
the land situated within the Northern and Southern boundary as specified in
Annexure II and listed at S.No.6 in the Sholur Village list in Annexure III of
G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010. Thereafter, the Sholur Town Panchayat has
issued demolition order dated 16.08.2024. Challenging the same, the present writ
petition is filed.
It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property was purchased by the
petitioner vide sale deeds dated 31.07.1996 and 22.11.1996 and revenue records
were mutated in their favour. Building approvals were granted by the Sholur
Panchayat and taxes were being paid regularly by the petitioner. The petitioner's
property is not mentioned in the G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010 notifying the
elephant corridor. The petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.9 of 2012 before the District
Munsif, Udhagamandalam for a permanent injunction restraining the District
Collector and the Tahsildar from interfering with the possession of the subject
property and the suit was decreed on 06.01.2015 and the same has attained finality.
While things stood thus, pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
directing the third respondent to lock and seal resorts/commercial establishments, the
subject property was locked and sealed.
The petitioner before the Inquiry committee filed objection on 14.10.2020,
wherein, the Inquiry Committee declared the title deeds of the petitioner as null and
void as the petitioner has not obtained prior permission as contemplated under
Section 2A of the TNPPF Act, 1949 and the survey number is notified in the
G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010. Challenging the same, the writ petition.
It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property was purchased by the
petitioner vide sale deed dated 18.08.1997 and revenue records were mutated in their
favour. Building approvals were granted by the Sholur Panchayat and taxes were
being paid regularly by the petitioner. The petitioner's property is not mentioned in
the G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010 notifying the elephant corridor. While things
stood thus, pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the third
respondent to lock and seal resorts/commercial establishments, the subject property
was locked and sealed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
The petitioner before the Inquiry committee filed objection on 09.02.2021,
wherein, the Inquiry Committee held that the subject property is a resort and there is
a deviation of over 800% against the approval plan and declared the title deeds of the
petitioner as null and void as the petitioner has not obtained prior permission as
contemplated under Section 2A of the TNPPF Act, 1949 and the survey number is
notified in the G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010. However, not sealed the building
with Door No.4/28F since the same was being used as residential premises and
lawfully locked and sealed the premises on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition.
It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property was purchased by the
petitioner vide sale deed dated 30.03.2009 and revenue records were mutated in their
favour and the petitioner was paying all the statutory and government fees without
fail. The petitioner's property is used primarily for residential purpose by his family.
While things stood thus, pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
directing the third respondent to lock and seal resorts/commercial establishments, the
subject property was locked and sealed.
It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that his vendor namely Mr.G.Ramesh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
has submitted the representation in case No.65 of 2021 and the second respondent
had conducted the investigation and passed the impugned order holding that the
purchase of the land after 15.11.1991 is null and void. The vendor has suppressed
the factum of purchase of 3.44 acres of land by the petitioner. It is his grievance that
notice or proper Inquiry was not given to the petitioner and the Inquiry Committee
has declared the sale as null and void. Only on 26.03.2024, he came to know about
the order of the Inquiry Committee. Hence, this writ petition challenges the order of
the Inquiry Committee.
It is the case of the petitioners that the subject property was purchased by the
petitioners vide sale deed dated 25.02.2009 and revenue records were mutated in
their favour. Taxes were being paid regularly by the petitioners and used for
residential purposes. Building approval was granted to the petitioner by the
Masinagudi Panchayat. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
constitution of the Inquiry Committee for the purpose of finding out the veracity of
the factual objections of individual objectors, the petitioners filed their objection.
The Inquiry Committee declared the title deeds of the petitioner as null and
void as the petitioner has not obtained prior permission as contemplated under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
Section 2A of the TNPPF Act, 1949 and the survey number is notified in the
G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010. However, it was held that the land is used for
agricultural purposes and with respect to the old building being used for residential
purposes, granted liberty to the petitioner to obtain permission under Section
3(1)(a)(b) of TNPPF Act and file a affidavit accepting all the conditions insisted
upon the District Collector and disposed of the objection. Challenging the said order,
the present writ petition. Challenging the same, the writ petition.
It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property was purchased by the
petitioner's father vide sale deed dated 10.02.1986 and thereafter, property devolved
to the petitioner and the revenue records were mutated in his favour. Building
approvals were granted by the Sholur Panchayat and taxes were being paid regularly
by the petitioner. The petitioner's property is used primarily for residential purpose
by his family. While things stood thus, pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court directing the third respondent to lock and seal resorts/commercial
establishments, the subject property was locked and sealed.
The petitioner before the Inquiry committee filed objection on 14.10.2020,
wherein, the Inquiry Committee held that as the sale transaction is prior to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
notification dated 15.11.1991, the petitioner is in lawful possession of the said lands
and the survey number in S.Nos.163 and 173 have been included in the elephant
corridor vide notification in G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010. The petitioner has
not produced prior permission under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
Further, the building is used as a guest house for commercial purposes and the same
has been lawfully locked and sealed after issuing a show cause notice dated
10.08.2018. Challenging the same, the writ petition.
It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property was purchased vide sale
deed dated 23.02.1990 and revenue records were mutated in her favour. Electricity
bills and taxes were being paid regularly by the petitioner. The petitioner's property
is used primarily for residential purpose by her family and she is residing with her
grandson. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in constitution of
Inquiry Committee for the purpose of finding out the veracity of the factual
objections of individuals objectors, the petitioner filed her objection.
The Inquiry Committee has held that as the sale transaction is prior to the
notification dated 15.11.1991, the petitioner is in lawful possession of the said lands,
however, the survey number is notified in the G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
Further, the subject property was used as commercial resorts and no permission was
granted by the competent authority for construction of guest house has violated the
provisions under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, however, the
petitioner's dwelling housing was not sealed and has full access to the land.
Challenging the same, the writ petition.
It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property was purchased vide sale
deed dated 17.07.1996 and revenue records were mutated in her favour. Electricty
bills and taxes were being paid regularly by the petitioner. The petitioner's property
is not mentioned in the G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010 notifying the elephant
corridor. The petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.9 of 2012 before the District Munsif,
Udhagamandalam and the suit was decreed on 06.01.2015 and the same has attained
finality. While things stood thus, pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
directing the third respondent to lock and seal resorts/commercial establishments, the
subject property was locked and sealed.
The petitioner before the Inquiry committee filed an objection on 14.10.2021,
wherein, the Inquiry Committee declared the title deeds of the petitioner as null and
void as the petitioner has not obtained prior permission as contemplated under
Section 2A of the TNPPF Act, 1949 and the survey number is notified in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010. Challenging the same, the writ petition.
W.P.Nos.23521 and 23526 of 2024
It is the case of the petitioner that she is the absolute owner of the subject
properties/ryotwari patta lands by virtue of sale deeds between 2006 and 2008. She
and her spouse started a homestay/resort under the name and style of De-Rock jungle
after obtaining the necessary permissions. The petitioner is a founding member of
the Hospitality Association of Mudumalai and has preferred a writ petition in
WP.No.27312 of 2016 challenging the validity of the notification dated 01.11.1991
issued under TNPPF Act. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
directing the District Collector, The Niligiris to lock and seal resorts/commercial
establishments, the subject properties were locked and sealed. Before the Inquiry
Committee, the petitioner filed her objection.
The Inquiry Committee held that the petitioner has not obtained permission
from the Committee constituted under TNPPF Act, 1949 to sell or alienate or
transfer the said lands, thus, as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the
TNPPF Act, alienation or sale of land is null and void. The petitioner has not
produced prior permission under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the subject
properties/ryotwari patta lands by virtue of sale deed of the year 2003 and had
started a homestay/resort under name and style of M/s.Bear Mountain Jungle Resort
Pvt. Ltd after obtaining necessary permissions. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court directing the District Collector, The Niligiris to lock and seal
resorts/commercial establishments, the subject property was locked and sealed.
Before the Inquiry Committee, the petitioner filed her objection.
The Inquiry Committee held that the petitioner has not obtained permission
from the Committee constituted under the TNPPF Act, 1949 to sell or alienate or
transfer the said lands, thus, as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the
TNPPF Act, alienation or sale of land is null and void. The petitioner has not
produced prior permission under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
Further, the buildings were used unauthorizedly for running a commercial resort.
Thereafter, the Executive Authority has issued demolition notice. Challenging the
same, the present writ petition is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
It is the case of the petitioner that she along with her husband purchased the
subject lands in the year 2006 and had started a homestay/resort under the name and
style of M/s.Hornbill Club Resort after obtaining necessary permissions. Pursuant to
the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the District Collector, The Niligiris
to lock and seal resorts/commercial establishments, the subject property was locked
and sealed. Before the Inquiry Committee, the petitioner filed her objection.
The Inquiry Committee held that the petitioner has not obtained permission
from the Committee constituted under TNPPF Act, 1949 to sell or alienate or
transfer the said lands, thus, as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the
TNPPF Act, alienation or sale of land is null and void. The petitioner has not
produced prior permission under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
Further, the buildings were used unauthorisedly for running a commercial resort and
also there is a deviation of over 115% against the approval plan. The subject
properties falls within the notified elephant corridor. Thereafter, the Executive
Authority has issued demolition notice dated 16.08.2024. Challenging the same, the
present writ petition is filed.
It is the case of the petitioner that her husband had purchased the subject
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
properties/ryotwari patta lands by virtue of a sale deed dated 13.04.2006. He started
a homestay/resort under the name and style of Rolling Stones Resort after obtaining
the necessary permissions. The petitioner is a founding member of the Hospitality
Association of Mudumalai and has preferred a writ petition in WP.No.27312 of 2016
challenging the validity of notification dated 01.11.1991 issued under TNPPF Act.
Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the District Collector,
The Niligiris to lock and seal resorts/commercial establishments, the subject
properties were locked and sealed. Before the Inquiry Committee, the petitioner filed
her objection.
The Inquiry Committee held that the petitioner has not obtained permission
from the Committee constituted under TNPPF Act, 1949 to sell or alienate or
transfer the said lands, thus, as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the
TNPPF Act, alienation or sale of land is null and void. The petitioner has not
produced prior permission under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
The subject property is located within the elephant corridor and the survey number is
included in the notification and there is deviation in the built up area. Thereafter, the
fifth respondent has issued demolition notice as against the petitioner. Challenging
the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
W.P.No.34953, 34956, 34960, 34964 and 34969 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
It is the case of the writ petitioners that they along with others had jointly
purchased their respective subject properties between the years 2000 and 2006.
Revenue records were mutated in their names and building approvals were granted
to the petitioners. Property taxes and Electricity bills were regularly being paid.
Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the District Collector,
The Niligiris to lock and seal resorts/commercial establishments, the subject
properties of the respective petitioners were locked and sealed. Before the Inquiry
Committee, the petitioners filed their objection on various grounds, i.e., their lands
does not fall within the elephant corridor, they are not running a resort and the
property is being used for residential purposes.
The Inquiry Committee held that the petitioners have not obtained permission
from the Committee constituted under TNPPF Act, 1949 to sell or alienate or
transfer the said lands, thus, as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the
TNPPF Act, alienation or sale of land is null and void and the petitioners are
utilising the lands for the purposes of running commercial resorts. The petitioners
have not produced prior permission under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act,
1980. Further, their lands fall within the Northern and Southern boundaries within
the notified elephant corridor in G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010 and further, the
building approvals are not in accordance with law and are not legally valid and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
uphold the sealing of their premises. Thereafter, the Executive Officer has issued
demolition orders as against the respective petitioners. Challenging the order in
objections as well as the demolition order, the present writ petitions are filed.
W.P.Nos.23499 and 23532 of 2024
It is the case of the writ petitioner in both the writ petitioner that the
petitioners had purchased the subject properties between the year 1995 to 2005. The
petitioners are in possession of freehold ryotwari patta lands and the titles are
deemed to be in order, even though the lands are notified under TNPPF Act vide
notification dated 15.11.1911. The petitioners are founding member of the
Hospitality Association of Mudumalai and have preferred a writ petition in
WP.No.27312 of 2016 challenging the validity of notification dated 01.11.1991
issued under TNPPF Act. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
directing the third respondent to lock and seal resorts/commercial establishments, the
subject properties were locked and sealed. Before the Inquiry Committee, the
petitioners filed their objection.
The Inquiry Committee held that the petitioner has not obtained permission
from the Committee constituted under TNPPF Act, 1949 to sell or alienate or
transfer the said lands, thus, as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the
TNPPF Act, alienation or sale of land is null and void. The petitioner has not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
produced prior permission under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
Further, their lands fall within the notified elephant corridor in G.O.Ms.No.125
dated 31.08.2010 and upheld the sealing of their premises. Challenging the same, the
present writ petitions are filed.
It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property was purchased by the
petitioner vide sale deed dated 30.03.2009 and revenue records were mutated in their
favour. Building approvals were granted by the Masinagudi Panchayat and taxes
were being paid regularly by the petitioner. The petitioner's property is used
primarily for residential purpose by his family. While things stood thus, pursuant to
the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the third respondent to lock and
seal resorts/commercial establishments, the subject property was locked and sealed.
It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that his vendor namely Mr.G.Ramesh has
submitted the representation in case No.65 of 2021 and the second respondent had
conducted the investigation and passed the imugned order holding that the purchase
of the land after 15.11.1991 is null and void. The vendor has suppressed the factum
of purchase of 3.44 acres of land by the petitioner.
It is his grievance that notice or proper Inquiry was not given to the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
and the Inquiry Committee has declared the sale as null and void. Only on
26.03.2024, he came to know about the order of the Inquiry Committee. Therefore,
he filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Inquiry Committee in
WP.No.12687 of 2024. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the fourth
respondent has now issued the impugned demolition order dated 21.04.2025.
Challenging the demolition order, the present writ petition has been filed.
It is the case of the petitioners that the subject property, i.e., Old S.No.235/1,
New S.No.247/5 was purchased by the petitioners from Adam Said during the year
2005 and the petitioners are the absolute owners of the properties. The revenue
records were mutated in his favour and the petitioners are cultivating coffee in the
subject land and panchayat approval has been granted to the petitioner for the
building. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in constitution of
Inquiry Committee for the purpose of finding out the veracity of the factual
objections of individual objectors, the petitioners filed their objection. It is the
grievance of the petitioner that properties do not situate within the elephant corridor.
The Inquiry Committee declared that the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners
cannot be said to be invalid as they have obtained permission from the concerned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
authority; however the survey number is notified in the public notice dated
01.01.2010 and also the buildings have been constructed illegally, therefore, the
same requires to be sealed excluding the portions being legitimately used for
residential purposes. Challenging the sealing order passed by the Inquiry Committee,
the present writ petition.
It is the case of the writ petitioners that they are the absolute owners of the
subject properties which were purchased by one Nathmall Vaid during the year 1939
and coffee plantation is running over for more than 300 years. It is their greivance
that the petitioners land were included in the GO.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010
despite their lands being situated outside the elephant corridor. Further, the Tahsildar
as well as the RDO had confirmed that their survey numbers do not locate inside the
elephant corridor and recommended for exclusion of survey numbers. Thereafter,
writ petitions were filed and this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the
District Collector, The Niligiris. The District Collector, The Niligiris submitted a
report dated 29.12.2014 to the first respondent recommending that their properties
may be excluded from Elephant Corridor notification, however, the first respondent
rejected the request of the petitioner. Hence, a writ petition was filed in
WP.No.29610 of 2018, this Court dismissed the writ petition and held that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
competent authority to pass orders is the first respondent. An appeal was filed in
W.A.No.29610 of 2018 and the same was disposed of with an observation that the
appellant shall seek remedy without prejudice to the proceedings undergone before
this Court. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in constitution of
Inquiry Committee for the purpose of finding out the veracity of the factual
objections of individual objectors, the petitioners filed their objection.
The Inquiry Committee held that since the issue concerning the exclusion of
the survey numbers has been decided and settled, the same cannot be agitated. The
Inquiry Committee has also conducted a field inspection. Further, the petitioners
have were before the statutory authority as well as the Courts seeking similar relief,
thus, they have hedged their legal bets in multiple fora parallel and the same is not
acceptable. Further, with regard to the acreage is concerned, the same is not
supported by any evidence. However, with respect to right to peaceful possession of
the patta lands for plantation activities, as agreed by the respondents that they shall
abide by the 12 conditions for their enjoyment of land subject to undertaking
affidavit within a period of four weeks; if at all the petitioners do not file such
affidavit, liberty was granted to the State Government to take action against the
objectors in accordance with law. With respect to the other issues pertaining to other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
properties, the same is outside the jurisdiction of Inquiry Committee and
accordingly, disposed of the objections. Challenging the order, the present writ
petition has been filed.
It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property was purchased by the
petitioner vide Doc.No.216 of 2006 on the file of the SRO, Udhagamandalam and
revenue records were mutated in his favour, taxes have been paid regularly to the
authorities concerned. The property is only used as their vacation home. Pursuant to
the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the District Collector to lock and
seal resorts/commercial establishments, the impugned order was passed by the
District Collector for closing down the property of the petitioner and the property
was locked and sealed. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that the third
respondent without application of mind has arrayed the petitioner's property as a
commercial belonging to another person and the impugned notice is issued to the
said person namely Mr.Rohan Mathias. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed objection
with a petition for condonation of delay and the petitioner has not received any
communication. Challenging the lock and seal order dated 12.08.2018 passed by the
District Collector, The Niligiris, the present writ petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner along with his brother are the
absolute owners of the subject property to an extent of 8.55 acres in RS.No.303/2
and they are in continuous possession and enjoyment for more than 100 years. While
so, the petitioner had obtained permission for operation of restaurant in one of the
buildings and started operation of the restaurant under the name and style of Glanton
Inn Restaurant not as a commercial enterprise, but primarily to provide support and
relief to travelers and stranded passengers on the Ghat Road. Thereafter, two
cottages were built for their personal use and occupancy within the Glencairn Estate
for the same, sanction and building approval were obtained from Hullathi Panchayat.
Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the third respondent to
lock and seal resorts/commercial establishments, the subject property was locked and
sealed on 12.08.2018. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the third respondent
had misidentified the restaurant and passed the order. Pursuant to the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in constitution of Inquiry Committee for the purpose of
finding out the veracity of the factual objections of individuals objectors, the
petitioner filed the objection.
The Inquiry Committee by the impugned order held that the petitioner's land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
falls within the elephant corridor; permission was obtained for personal use,
whereas, was unauthorizedly using it as commercial resorts is a violation of Section
2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and directed that the petitioner may be
allotted an opportunity to voluntarily dismantle the sealed buildings and transport all
the materials out of the property before action is initiated as per the findings arrived
by the Inquiry Committee.
It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property in Old S.Nos.238/7A
and 238/7A1, New Survey Nos.392/1 and 392/5, Vazhaithottam Masinagudi was
purchased by the petitioner on 16.06.1984 and revenue records were mutated in their
favour. Building approvals were granted by the Masinagudi Panchayat and taxes
were being paid regularly by the petitioner. The petitioner's property is used for
residential purpose and also to enable a shelter to the Jain monks and other spiritual
persons who travel on foot. While things stood thus, pursuant to the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the third respondent to lock and seal
resorts/commercial establishments, the subject property was locked and sealed on
26.08.2018. The petitioner has filed its objection before the Inquiry Comittee. The
Inquiry Committee has held that since the petitioner has purchased the property prior
to the TNPPF Notification dated 15.11.1991, the petitioner is in lawful possession,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
however, held that the lands are listed in Annexure III of G.O.Ms.No.125 dated
31.08.2010 and falls within in the elephant corridor; there are major deviation with
an excess construction and usage violations since all approvals are for residential
purposes and prior permission under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 was not obtained and permitted the petitioner to use the portion of the building
which has not been sealed and being used as a residence. In pursuance to the order of
the Inquiry Committee, the Executive Officer/Masinagudi Panchayat has issued
demolition order dated 23.11.2024. Challenging the said order, the present revision
has been filed.
It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property in Old S.Nos.238/7A
and 238/7A1, New Survey Nos.392/1 and 392/5, Vazhaithottam Masinagudi was
purchased by the petitioner on 16.06.1984 and revenue records were mutated in their
favour. Building approvals were granted by the Masinagudi Panchayat and taxes
were being paid regularly by the petitioner. The petitioner's property is used for
residential purpose and also to enable a shelter to the Jain monks and other spiritual
persons who travel on foot. While things stood thus, pursuant to the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the third respondent to lock and seal
resorts/commercial establishments, the subject property was locked and sealed on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
26.08.2018. The petitioner has filed its objection before the Inquiry Comittee. The
Inquiry Committee has held that since the petitioner has purchased the property prior
to the TNPPF Notification dated 15.11.1991, the petitioner is in lawful possession,
however, held that the lands are listed in Annexure III of G.O.Ms.No.125 dated
31.08.2010 and falls within in the elephant corridor; there are major deviation with
an excess construction and usage violations since all approvals are for residential
purposes and prior permission under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 was not obtained and permitted the petitioner to use the portion of the building
which has not been sealed and being used as a residence. Challenging the order of
the Enquiry Committee, the present revision has been filed.
It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner has purchased the subject
properties in Sholur Village between the years 2001 and 2004 and revenue records
were mutated in his favour. The petitioner has raised super structure for the
residential purpose. A notification was issued under Section 1(2)(ii) of TNPPF Act
on 15.11.1991 to prevent the indiscrimnate destruction of private forest and
interference with the customary prescriptive right. The provisions of statute under
Section 3 contemplates upon the preservation of private forest and it demands the
owner to not to deal with property without the previous sanction of the Committee.
The properties of the petitioner was declared as private forest. It is the grievance of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
the petitioner that the notification was passed without the knowledge of the owner of
the property. The Government of Tamil Nadu had introduced Section 4-A of the
TNPPF Act, 1949 under which the persons who had purchased the property without
the sanction of the committee may apply afresh to retain the whole or any portion of
the area declared as "forest". The committee is empowered to accord sanction. The
committee can refuse only if any prosecution is instituted against the applicant who
had violated under Section 7 of the TNPPF Act which deals with penalties. Hence,
the petitioner filed an application under Section 4-A of the TNPPF Act, however, the
petitioner had not subjected to any penalty at the instance of the respondent and the
same was rejected on the ground that the survey numbers of the petitioner's land falls
within the elephant corridor by way of the impugned proceedings dated 01.07.2024.
It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that transfer of property cannot be interdicted
by the respondents and the sale of the property does not require the sanction of the
State, the object of the TNPPF Act is only to ensure that the private forest is not
destroyed and the respondent cannot take up the role of annulling title in respect to
the property. Challenging the proceedings of the respondent rejecting the application
under Section 4A of the TNPPF Act, the present writ petition has been filed.
COUNTER
13. Even though separate counters have been filed in all the writ petitions,
since, the contentions revolves around same subject matter, contentions culled out
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
from all the counters are briefed as below:-
14. It is the contention of the District Collector/The Niligiris in all the writ
petitions that based on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a detailed plan
of action report comprising the constructions made in the elephant corridor areas was
identified and submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05.08.2018.
Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.08.2018 in
W.P.(Civil).No.897 of 1996 directed the resorts to produce documents showing
approval and valid title and possession for running resorts before the District
Collector. In case, the District Collector finds that the approval is not granted, the
Collector should close down and seal the premises immediately. Accordingly, prior
notices were issued to the concerned 11 resorts' owners, except M/s.Alok Gupta,
since he has produced valid documents to prove his usage as residential purposes,
others have not produced documents and on verification of the documents, the
petitioners' resorts were locked and sealed after giving due notice and time.
Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 24.10.2018 directed that
electric fences and barbed wire, wherever installed by the resort owners should be
removed immediately. Accordingly, the subject premises were locked and sealed and
the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were strictly adhered to without any
deviations.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
15. Subsequently, the Inquiry Committee was constituted by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court to decide the individual objections aggrieved by the actions of the
District Collector, The Niligiris. The petitioners herein have filed their objections
containing their grievances before the Hon'ble Inquiry Committee. The Hon'ble
Inquiry Committee after hearing the petitioners at large and conducting physical
inspection in the subject premises had passed the impugned order rightly rejecting
the contentions of the petitioners that their premises is used only as residential
premises, their premises does not situate in the elephant corridor by holding that
boundary description as contained in the notification will prevail, irrespective of
whether a survey number is indicated or not and as per clause (b) of sub-section (1)
of Section 3 of the TNPPF Act, alienation or sale of land is null and void and further,
permission ought to have obtained under TNPPF Act, 1949 to sell or alienate or
transfer the said lands and Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
Thereafter, on the strength of the powers conferred upon the Executive Officer,
Sholur Panchayat, the demolition order has been issued as against the subject lands.
16. It is the specific contention of the respondents that the some of the
petitioners have challenged the notification issued in the year 1991, whereas, the
petitioners knowing well that the lands are notified in elephant corridor has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
purchased the property later without getting approval, hence, the Inquiry Committee
has rightly held that the petitioners have not obtained permission from the
Committee constituted under the TNPPF Act, 1949 to sell or alienate or transfer the
said lands, thus, as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the TNPPF Act,
alienation or sale of land is null and void. The petitioners concerned have also filed
petition under Section 4-A for ratification of their title and the same are pending.
Even getting residential permission from the local bodies and using it for commercial
purposes is clear violation under Section 47-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country
Planning Act and the petitioners are utilising the lands for the purposes of running
commercial resorts without obtaining necessary permission under Architectural and
Aesthetics Aspects Committee (AAA) and Hill Area Conservation Authority
(HACA) Committee which are formed for regulation of building usage and to
safeguard the ecology, therefore, the petitioners premises were locked and sealed.
17. The petitioners have not obtained prior permission under Section 2 of the
Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for carrying out any non-forestry activities in the
lands notified as 'forest' irrespective of their ownership as per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of
India and others reported in AIR 1997 SC 1228.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
18. Further, the contention that notification of the elephant corridor does not
authorise demolition and therefore, demolition order issued by the Executive Officer,
Panchayat concerned is illegal is unsustainable as the demolition order is issued
pursuant to the order of the Inquiry Committee wherein the Inquiry Committee has
held that the petitioners have violated various provisions of law governing the
elephant corridor by constructing the illegal commercial resort.
19. It is also the contention that due to inadvertence in correlation between the
old and new survey numbers, a few survey numbers were left out in the notification
even though they are situated in the middle of the boundary descriptions of the
elephant corridor area. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that the lands do not
come under the elephant corridor is not sustainable.
20. It is also the contention that the petitioners therein have challenged the
validity of the TNPPF notification in W.P.No.24575 of 2009 and the validity of the
said notification was upheld by this Court and the writ appeals in W.A.Nos.35 and
405 of 2012 were dismissed by two different Division Benches vide judgment dated
08.12.2017 and 30.01.2018 respectively and the judgment is binding on all the
parties and the petitioners lands are admittedly notified under the TNPPF Act and
their title is void as per Section 3 of the TNPPF Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
21. Further, the petitioners concerned have raised the validity of notification of
eco-sensitive zone dated 13.12.2019, the petitioners lands fall within the
conservation area essential for preserving the ecosystems flora and fauna and the
activities permitted in Eco sensitive zone are related as per applicable laws and the
lands are notified elephant corridor, ecologically fragile lands with varied forest
types and micro climates constructed with natural barriers through which elephants
have to pass through during seasonal change between two major habitats, viz.,
Western and Eastern Ghats. Thus, in view of the topographic importance of this area,
the petitioners' attempt to take umbrage under the eco-sensitive zone has to be
rejected ex-facie. Therefore, seeks for dismissal of writ petitions by upholding the
orders of the Inquiry Committee affirming the validity of the TNPPF notification,
demolition notices and eco-sensitive zone notification as being in the paramount
interest of wildlife conservation and ecological integrity.
22. In addition, the specific contention of the District Collector, The Niligiris
as against the individual a writ petition in WP.No. 12687 of 2024 is that the objector
Mr.G.Ramesh in case No.65 of 2021 has deliberately concealed the sale of 3.44 acres
to the petitioner. This clearly shows that they have attempted to mislead the Inquiry
Committee by falsely stating on affidavit they are the owners of 13.44 acres of land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
for 41 years with the ulterior motive of legalising the sale of 3.44 acres by attempting
to secure a finding from the Inquiry Committee. Hence, seeks for dismissal of this
writ petition.
23. It is the specific contention of the District Collector, Niligiris in
WP.No.27924 of 2024 that the Committee constituted under Section 2-A of the
TNPPF Act invoking the powers under sub-section (3) of Section 4-A of the TNPPF
Act, 1949 under the residuary clause of "any other reason" that these lands are
falling under the "elephant corridor". The only remedy of the petitioner is to file an
appeal under Section 3(4) of the TNPPF Act and not knocking the doors of the Writ
Court. Hence, sought for dismissal of this writ petition.
SUBMISSIONS
Submissions on behalf of the petitioners:-
24. The primary contention of Ms.Jayna Kothari, learned senior advocate for
the petitioners in WP.No.33129 of 2023 and 9790 of 2025 is that the petitioners are
the owners of residential premises and the premises are not a resort carrying on
commercial activities. The purpose of setting up the Inquiry Committee by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment was to curb the commercial activities in the
Elephant Corridor, whereas, the Inquiry Committee has transgressed beyond its
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
scope by delving into the title of the petitioners and has outrightly passed the orders
sealing the residential premises of the petitioners. The Inquiry Committee was
appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to decide the individual objections of the
persons being aggrieved by the actions of the District Collector, however, the Inquiry
Committee has ignored the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and beyond its
scope relied upon the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 and
passed the impugned order in sealing the residential premises of the petitioners. The
petitioners had filed their objections by producing House Tax receipts, electricity
bills were produced having meager charges and building plans issued by Masinagudi
Panchayat for residential purposes were also produced before the Inquiry Committee,
ignored the above documents.
25. The Inquiry Committee had erroneously assumed that the vendor of the
petitioner is a company, whereas, power of attorney was given in an individual name
and the same was sold to the petitioner vide a registered sale agreement and the title
is transferred to the petitioner by way of possessory right as per the Transfer of
Property Act. To buttress her submissions, she also submitted that the petitioner's
adjacent land owner's objection namely Alok Guptha's objection was considered and
his property was unsealed, whereas, petitioners' houses were sealed.
26. In all, she submitted that Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
1949 is not at all within the scope of the constitution of the Inquiry Committee by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereas, the Inquiry Committee relying Section 3(1)(b) of
TNPPF Act, 1949 has passed the order dispossessing the petitioners from their
residential premises. The order sealing the residential premises of the petitioners is
arbitrary. Further, the inspection was done without issuing notice to the objectors.
Further, there is no proof or signature to establish that the objectors were present
during the inspection. It was also held by the Inquiry Committee that 13066.8 sq.ft.,
is built up area, whereas, 2347 sq.ft., is only a built up area in WP.No.33129 of 2024
and further, in WP.No.9790 of 2025, it was held that 6843 sq.ft., is built up area,
whereas, 2357 sq.ft., is only built up area.
27. Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP.No.26182
of 2023, 2667, 4448, 7444, 28995, 25405, 33012, 35966, 25371, 25395, 25398,
25414, 25457, 25464, 28949 of 2024; 1652, 23748, 25501, 27892 & 18143 of 2025
submitted that survey numbers of the petitioners were not included in the
Government Order and the properties situate outside the elephant corridor. To
substantiate the same, he relied on a letter issued by the District Forest Officer to the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests dated 19.10.2016, wherein, it is admitted that
the S.Nos.114/1, 114/2A were not included. The Inquiry Committee has traversed
beyond the Government Order and held that boundaries will prevail over the survey
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
number which is against the Government Order. Further, he submitted that the area
in question falls under the eco-sensitive zone as per the Notification S.O.4498(E)
dated 12.2.2019 by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, where
under, various commercial activities, including existing hotels/resorts are regulated
and their activities are limited, but not prohibited. Furthermore, the concept of eco
tourism essentially includes construction of home stays as an aspect of sustainable
development. He further submitted that even if the sale is void, the title will revert
back to the vendor. Article 65 of the Limitation Act will apply to a void sale. The
State does not acquire title under the TNPPF Act. The Government Order did not
contemplate about the rights of the property. Notification under Section 1(2)(ii)
under TNPPF Act should not have been issued, rather, notification under Section
1(2)(iii) ought to have been issued since Section 1(2)(ii) relates to Estate Act. The
finding of the Committee that the principle of boundaries prevails over survey
number is bad in law. The boundaries will prevail over the extent of land not survey
number. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of
State of Tamil Nadu vs. Mohamed Nagib and others reported in 2003 (1) LW 258,
wherein, it was held that boundaries cannot override specific survey number
notifications unless expressly provided by statute. It is also his contention that there
is only a proposal pending for the inclusion of the petitioners' properties in the
elephant corridor, action cannot lawfully be taken on the basis of a mere proposal. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
support of the same, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
cases of State of Uttaranchal vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish reported in (2011) 8 SCC 670.
28. He also submitted that the Inquiry Committee is not competent to declare a
sale as void since, the TNPPF Act does not have the effect of divesting the title of
the owner, nor does it contemplate dispossession of persons who are in settled
position. This has been clearly held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Kanyakumari District Planters Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2016
SCC OnLine Mad 1548. He argued that the TNPPF Act operates independently and
there shall not be telescoping into the Forest Conservation Act, relying on T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulpad (cited supra). Referring to the aborted acquisition under
G.O. Ms. No. 154, he stressed that the acquisition must follow due process. He
further pointed out inconsistencies in the treatment of Survey Nos. 114/1, 114/2,
144/6, and 144/7 in the plan of action report and action taken report, arguing this
contradiction creates estoppel. The Government Order in GO.Ms.No.125 dated
31.08.2020 has nothing to do with possession, legal ownership and rights of the
petitioners. Therefore, the State is estopped from acting contrary to its own
assurances and promises. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbai vs. Devaji reported in (1952) 2 SCC 92.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
29. It is also his submission that the Government had admittedly not published
the cadastral map containing the relevant survey numbers, in the absence of such
publication, the petitioners were under bonafide impression that their properties
were not notified as part of the elephant corridor. Further, the Executive Authority
invoking Section 56 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act is
erroneous, the Executive Authority was bound to follow the mandatory procedure
prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Removal of
Unauthorised Development) Rules, 2022 without following the demolition notices
have been issued. Thus, the impugned notices are legally unsustainable.
30. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in
WP.No.28505 of 2024 submitted that the petitioner society does not run a resort, the
record District Collector indicate that this is not an elephant corridor. Electricity
connection was converted to domestic in the year 2009. A report has been given by
the District Collector and permission was granted to convert non-residential to
residential in the year 2010. Now the property is only used for retreat purposes by
Laymen Evangelical Society for a gathering to read bible. It was also his contention
that adjacent property was exempted stating that Alok Gupta is using the property
only for residential purposes and his property was sealed and later desealed.
However, the petitioner's request was rejected. The petitioner has purchased the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
property in as is where is condition and using the same only for retreat purposes and
not operating the same for commercial activities. The Inquiry Committee ought to
have seen that there was no commercial activities in the properties, further, there is
no materials to arrive at such conclusion by the Inquiry Committee. He further
contended that even the sale is declared to be null and void, the property will revert
back to the original title owner, therefore, even assuming that the sale is null and
void, it does not mean that the property should be handed over to the Government.
31. Mr.T.Gowthaman, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in
WP.Nos.8326, 24928 of 2024 submitted that the lock and seal order was passed by
the District Collector, The Niligiris without giving opportunity as contemplated
under Sections 56 & 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act which
mandates 30 days period and the same is against the principles of natural justice.
Against the lock and seal order, statutory appeal under Section 80-A was filed and
the same was allowed setting aside the lock and seal order passed by the District
Collector, The Niligiris. The order in appeal was produced before the Inquiry
Committee and the same was not considered by the Inquiry Committee.
32. The order of the Inquiry Committee recommending the demolition order is
excess jurisdiction, the Inquiry committee was formed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
only for the purpose of finding out whether there was any excess on the part of the
District Collector, The Niligiris. Whereas, the Inquiry Committee has recommended
for vacating and demolishing the building without following due process of law. The
proper procedure is to acquire the lands by the Government as stipulated under Land
Acquisition Act.
33. The Inquiry committee relied on a web page and had decided the case of
the petitioners in a hasty manner holding that one of the director is a share holder in
another company situated in Kabini at Karnataka, therefore, commercial activity is
being carried on is without any evidence and the same cannot be sustained in the eye
of law. The Inquiry committee is only an investigating authority as against the action
of the District Collector, The Niligiris, however, contrary to the directions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Inquiry Committee has acted as an adjudicating
authority and declared the sale to the petitioners as null and void, only a competent
Civil Court has to adjudicate and decide the same.
34. Further, he would submit that the petitioners had already applied for
change of tariff as residential in the year 2011 itself, however, the same was not
changed till date. The petitioners are using the premises only for residential purposes
and not for commercial purpose as alleged by the District Collector, The Niligiris
and the Inquiry Committee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
35. Further, his contention is that there are discrepancies between the two
reports submitted by the Collector. He contended that the Committee exceeded its
jurisdiction by failing to issue proper notice, thereby violating principles of natural
justice. It was further submitted that the Committee lacked authority to adjudicate
questions of title. Regarding the use of the property, he stated that the log house and
cottage were used solely for residential purposes, with labourers residing therein.
36. Mr.Salman Khurshid, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in
WP.Nos.23499, 23502, 23521, 23526, 23528, 23532, 23536 of 2024 submitted that
the notification under TNPPF Act has come into effect only after the activities being
carried on by the petitioners' resort, hence, the notification under TNPPF Act cannot
be applied retrospectively, it can be given effect to only prospectively.
G.O.Ms.No.125 has been issued only with the intention of managing the activities of
the elephant corridor not with regard to vacating the petitioners in the elephant
corridor. Admittedly, the notified elephant corridor/expanded corridor is subsequent
to the Gaja report and there is eco-sensitive zone, regulations stipulate that no
commercial activities to be carried out. Therefore, there can be a regulation over the
petitioners' resort but not to conduct commercial activities, not to evict them from the
premises. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed to limit not to eliminate the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
persons from their possession.
37. It was contended that the plan of action report has only one list, it does not
specify whether it is the actual corridor or the expanded corridor. The concern of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court is to stop the mushrooming of resorts in the corridor and the
directions was issued to close down the illegal operation of resorts and thus, 27
resorts were closed down and the remaining 12 resorts were directed to produce
documents with regard to the permission for running the resorts, however without
considering the documents with regard to permission in functioning the resorts, the
District Collector, The Niligiris had passed the sealing order. Thereafter, the
Committee was formed only to look into the excess on the part of the District
Collector, The Niligiris, whereas, the Committee has gone into the title and had
ordered for demolition of building which is excess of jurisdiction on the part of the
Inquiry Committee. It is his contention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed
to close down only the resorts functioning without permission not the resorts
functioning with permission. Lock and seal order was passed to the petitioners'
resorts despite approval from the Panchayat.
38. The learned senior counsel emphasised the doctrine of merger, that the
High Court's judgment is considered to have merged with the Supreme Court's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
judgment. Highlighting the inaccuracies and discrepancies in the collector’s report,
the learned counsel insisted that there has to be a single window clearance for taking
permission to run an establishment, and if any additional permission has to be taken,
it has to be precisely mentioned in the statute. Additionally, the learned counsel
relied on the precautionary principle and contended that the principle merely limits
commercial establishments and does not restrict them on the whole.
39. It was further urged that once a building is constructed with a plinth area
below 250 square meters, the requirement under law is only to obtain permission
from the local Panchayat. Thereafter, if the owner proposes to put up an additional
construction, he may seek permission from the Panchayat once again and get
sanction after getting endorsement from AAA Comittee. The learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the petitioner has scrupulously followed this procedure and there has
been no infraction warranting adverse action.
40. Mr. Om Prakash, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in WP.No.22933
of 2024 submitted that the property lies outside the notified boundary and, therefore,
should not be subject to the Committee’s restrictions. He contended that the
Committee erroneously disregarded the sale deed dated 07.05.2005, treating it as
invalid without justification. It was further submitted that the petitioner had produced
house tax receipts in support of residential use, which were not duly considered, and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
that the land was purchased as coffee plantation property.
Submissions on behalf of the Official Respondents:-
41. Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
official respondents submitted that the TNPPF Act was enacted with the object of
regulating the use of private forest lands and preventing indiscriminate deforestation,
in furtherance of ecological balance and public interest. Referring to the relevant
provisions of the Act, including those governing the constitution of the committee
and the powers conferred therein, it was argued that the District Collector is the
competent authority empowered to issue notifications under the Act. This position, it
was submitted, is fortified by the decision in Kanyakumari District Planters'
Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein the District Collector's role in regulating
elephant corridor was upheld. Reliance was also placed on the 1979 Amendment to
the Act, which clarified that while the framing of rules must be placed before the
Legislative Assembly, the issuance of notifications lies exclusively within the
executive powers of the District Collector.
42. The learned counsel also invoked the doctrine of res judicata, contending
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
that the issue stands concluded by the decision in the Masinagudi Farmers
Association case. Emphasising the imperative of sustainable development, it was
argued that the State has progressively shifted from an anthropocentric approach to
an ecocentric one, aligning its actions with established environmental principles such
as the precautionary principle and the public trust doctrine, in order to ensure long-
term ecological preservation and responsible governance.
43. He also placed strong reliance on the ecological importance of the elephant
corridor, particularly in facilitating the migratory movement of elephants and
ensuring genetic diversity within the population. He submitted that the presence of
uninterrupted corridors is critical to maintaining viable elephant populations and
preventing inbreeding. The learned AAG further contended that unregulated private
tourism within such ecologically sensitive areas has a deleterious effect, resulting in
habitat fragmentation, disruption of migratory paths, loss of ecological connectivity,
and increased instances of human-animal conflict. Such impacts, he submitted, could
lead to irreversible ecological damage.
44. In explaining the methodology adopted for the determination of corridors,
the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the process is systematic and
scientifically driven. It is based on factors such as historical usage of the path by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
elephants, the presence of a viable buffer area, adequacy of water sources, and the
minimum required width, which, he noted, must not be less than 1 kilometre. The
corridor must also facilitate the movement of other species such as tigers, thereby
contributing to the larger ecological landscape connectivity. He emphasised the
necessity of both short-term and long-term conservation strategies, including
proactive corridor protection measures.
45. Refuting the contention of the petitioner regarding specific survey numbers
mentioned in the notification, the learned Additional Advocate General argued that
the crucial point for determination is not the individual survey numbers but the
ecological boundaries and continuity of the corridor, which define its functional and
ecological integrity. He clarified that as per the guidelines issued by the National
Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), ecotourism in protected areas must be
undertaken strictly under the supervision and direction of the statutory authorities,
and not by private entities operating independently.
46. The learned Additional Advocate General also contended that the District
Collector had duly deliberated upon the "Gaja Report" and proceeded to take
appropriate action through the constitution of three teams comprising officials from
the Revenue Department, Forest Department, and the Local Bodies concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
47. Refuting the contentions raised by the petitioners, the learned AAG
submitted that the property belonging to Mr. Alok Gupta was not subjected to
demolition as he had produced all valid and relevant documents evidencing his
lawful possession and compliance with applicable regulations.
48. The learned AAG further emphasized that elephants are a keystone species
and that the designated elephant corridor predominantly lies within the reserve forest
area. He asserted that in accordance with the prevailing regulatory framework, any
construction exceeding 250 square meters or involving commercial establishments
requires prior permission from the District Collector. In the instant case, the
petitioners, having failed to disclose accurate and complete information, appear to
have obtained approval from local bodies without obtaining the requisite sanction
from the competent authority. It was also submitted that the petitioners had not
obtained mandatory permission under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of
Private Forests Act, 1949 (TNPPF Act), as well as under Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, which are preconditions for any activity within or abutting
forest land.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
Submssions made by the learned Amicus Curiae:-
49. Though the First Bench of this Court has requested Mr.M.Santhanaraman,
learned counsel to assist this Court, in view of the objection raised by one of the
learned senior counsel for the petitioners alleging conflict of interest since he has
appeared for State before the Inquiry Committee, Mr.M.Santhanamaran, learned
counsel himself recused, we heard Mr.T.Mohan, learned senior counsel, amicus
curiae. The learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. T. Mohan, commenced his submissions by
addressing the legal validity of the TNPPF Act and the notifications issued
thereunder. He submitted that the constitutional and statutory validity of the Act, as
well as the notification in question, have already been upheld by competent judicial
forums. However, he drew the Court’s attention to certain additional legal and
factual grounds arising uniquely in the present case, which warrant independent
consideration. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decisions in
Pushpabal Mangalchand Vaid vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Kanyakumari District
Planters' Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein the scope and applicability of
the TNPPF Act were elaborated upon. He submitted that these decisions reaffirm the
binding nature and continued applicability of the Act.
50. The learned amicus curiae placed reliance on the Expert Committee Report
submitted by the Department of Environment (Parives), and submitted that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
findings therein lend further support to the ecological and legal rationale for the
enforcement of the corridor notification.
51. Further, the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. T. Mohan, submitted that the
assessment of the matter at hand must rest on three core components: (i) the Plan of
Action Report submitted by the District Collector, (ii) the Action Taken Report of
the District Collector, and (iii) the findings of the Inquiry Committee constituted in
the case. With reference to the issue raised concerning the scope and authority of the
Inquiry Committee, the learned Amicus clarified that the Committee is indeed
empowered to examine and report on issues arising from miscellaneous petitions
filed in connection with the main proceedings. There was, therefore, no excess of
jurisdiction in the Committee’s Inquiry.
52. He further submitted that a harmonious interpretation must be applied
when reading the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) Notification in conjunction with G.O.
Ms. No. 125, 1991, which relates to the elephant corridor. Such an interpretation, he
argued, ensures that ecological protections under both instruments are harmoniously
constructed. He also reiterated the submission of the learned Additional Advocate
General that in terms of the guidelines issued by the National Tiger Conservation
Authority (NTCA), eco-tourism activities cannot be conflated with or used as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
justification for the operation of private resorts, which fall under a distinct regulatory
framework.
53. Mr.T.Mohan, the learned amicus curiae further submitted that the Tamil
Nadu District Municipalities Act confers adequate power upon local authorities to
initiate demolition of structures that are constructed without valid licences or in
violation of statutory requirements. In his view, the legal position is clear and the
matter does not warrant any further deliberation. In conclusion, he contended that the
alleged variation in the extent of land (acreage) does not substantively advance the
case of the petitioners, nor does it alter the legal consequences arising from the
violations established on record.
54. Mr. S. Karthikei Balan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Enquiry Committee assisted the court by placing the details of hearing, or the records
before the Committee, whenever required by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
FINDINGS & REASONING
55. We had given the our due consideration to the arguments made and
perused the materials on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
56. At the outset, it is to be noted that the facts were findings were made on
three occasions, i.e., the basis of (a) plan of action report that is based on the fact
finding authority/District Collector; (b) the action taken report by the District
Collector; and (c) then finally by the Inquiry Committee which had given
opportunity to all the parties and in fact, verified and inspected all the records and
gave its findings with regard to the objections raised by the petitioners herein.
57. The Nilgiris Biosphere Reserve is home for single largest population of
Asian Elephants in the world numbering about 6000-7000 individuals are critically
endangered. Unless their migratory corridors between their habitats are preserved,
the habitats will be fragmented resulting in forcing the elephant populations to
extinction. Article 21 of the Constitution of India not only protects the right to life of
humans but also protects and preserves other species. That apart, conservation and
protection of environment is an inseparable part of the right to life. We humans
should safeguard the endangered species, since, the right to life is extended to them
on the earth like human beings. The shift from anthropocentric to eco-centric
approach has to be keenly looked into. The State, being the custodian of natural
resources, has a duty to maintain them. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath reported in (1997) 1 SCC 388 has enunciated
the doctrine of “public trust”, the thrust of that theory is that certain common
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
properties such as rivers, seashores, forests and the air are held by the Government in
trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. The resources like
air, sea, water and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole,
that it would be totally unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The
State, as a custodian of the natural resources, has a duty to maintain them not merely
for the benefit of the public, but for the best interest of flora and fauna, wildlife and
so on. The relevant paragraphs of the judgments in M.C.Mehta's case reads as
follows:
" 34. Our legal system — based on English common law —
includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State
is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for
public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the sea-
shore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The
State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural
resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted
into private ownership.
35. We are fully aware that the issues presented in this case illustrate
the classic struggle between those members of the public who would
preserve our rivers, forests, parks and open lands in their pristine
purity and those charged with administrative responsibilities who,
under the pressures of the changing needs of an increasingly complex
society, find it necessary to encroach to some extent upon open lands
heretofore considered inviolate to change. The resolution of this
conflict in any given case is for the legislature and not the courts. If
there is a law made by Parliament or the State Legislatures the courts
can serve as an instrument of determining legislative intent in the
exercise of its powers of judicial review under the Constitution. But in
the absence of any legislation, the executive acting under the doctrine
of public trust cannot abdicate the natural resources and convert them
into private ownership, or for commercial use. The aesthetic use and
the pristine glory of the natural resources, the environment and the
ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
private, commercial or any other use unless the courts find it
necessary, in good faith, for the public good and in public interest to
encroach upon the said resources. "
Emphasis supplied
58. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Telangana and others vs. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) per legal representatives
reported in (2024) 6 SCC 461 has held as follows:
"49. There is a crying need for a change in our approach. Man being an
enlightened species, is expected to act as a trustee of the Earth. It is his
duty to ensure the preservation of the ecosystem and to continuously
endeavour towards the protection of air, water and land. It is not his
right to destroy the habitat of other species but his duty to protect them
from further peril. A right to enjoy cannot be restricted to any specific
group, and so also to human beings. The time has come for mankind to
live sustainably and respect the rights of rivers, lakes, beaches,
estuaries, ridges, trees, mountains, seas and air. It is imperative to do so
as there is always a constant threat to forests due to the ever-increasing
population. Man is bound by nature's law. Therefore, the need of the
hour is to transform from an anthropocentric approach to ecocentric
approach which will encompass a wider perspective in the interest of the
environment.
54. Similarly, the concept of sustainable development is to be
understood from an ecocentric approach. First and foremost, it is the
environment that needs to be sustained, while the anthropogenic
development must follow later. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (87) v.
Union of India [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (87) v. Union of India,
(2006) 1 SCC 1] : (SCC pp. 22-23, para 38)
“38. Forest sustainability is an integral part of forest management and
policy that also has a unique dominating feature and calls for forest
owners and society to make a long-term (50 years or longer)
commitment to manage forests for future generations. One of the
viewpoints for sustaining forest is a naturally functioning forest
ecosystem. This viewpoint takes the man and nature relationship to the
point of endorsing, to the extent possible, the notion of letting the forest
develop and process without significant human intervention. A strong
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
adoption of the naturalistic value system that whatever nature does is
better than what humans do, this is almost the “nature dominates man”
perspective. Parks and natural reserve creations; non-intervention in
insect, disease and fire process; and reduction of human activities are
typical policy situations. This viewpoint has been endorsed by the 1988
Forest Policy of the Government of India.”
(emphasis supplied)
67. Amarnath Shrine, In re [Amarnath Shrine, In re, (2013) 3 SCC 247]
: (SCC p. 260, para 19)
“19. Where it is the bounden duty of the State to protect the above
rights of the citizen in discharge of its constitutional obligation in
the larger public interest, there the law also casts a duty upon the
State to ensure due protection to the forests and environment of the
country. Forests in India are an important part of the environment.
They constitute a national asset. We may, at this stage, refer to the
concept of inter-generational equity, which has been treated to be an
integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The courts
have applied this doctrine of sustainable development and
precautionary principle to the cases where development is necessary,
but certainly not at the cost of environment. The courts are expected
to drive a balance between the two. In other words, the onerous duty
lies upon the State to ensure protection of environment and forests on
the one hand as well as to undertake necessary development with due
regard to the fundamental rights and values.”
(emphasis supplied)"
Thus, it can be seen that the approach shall be eco-centric. The elephants, and
the Corridor and its ecosystem, are not objects to be protected but subjects with
rights to exist, to regenerate, survive and proliferate. The Courts have a mandatory
duty to act as parens patriae protecting them.
59. The main contention of the petitioner in WP.No.28995 of 2024 is that
necessary residential license has been obtained by the petitioner and the building has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
been constructed properly, taxes and other statutory payments were being made by
the petitioner regularly, that apart, no commercial activities were carried out in the
residential premises. It is to be noted that to buttress the averments of the writ
petitioner that the building was constructed with proper planning, no permission
whatsoever has been produced before the Inquiry Committee; on physical inspection,
the Inquiry Committee has found that large scale violations were carried on and the
building was never used for residential purpose and was used only for commercial
purpose. Therefore, once the buildings have been put up without any proper planning
permission and being used for commercial purposes, it cannot be said that merely
because they have purchased the property and are in possession of the property, such
illegal operation should be legalised. Hence, on factual findings and inspections, the
Inquiry Committee has found that the building was not used for residential purpose
and were used only for commercial purpose, which in the view of this Court is
correct and cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, we do not find any merits in the
writ petitions.
60. In WP.No.22933 of 2024, it is the contention of the writ petitioner that
their property in Old S.No.235/1, New S.No.247/5 measuring to an extent of 23.01.5
hectares situated at Masinagudi Village lies outside the boundary. We have also seen
the sketch. Though their survey number in Old S.No.235/1, New S.No.247/5 is just
below the boundaries shown in the map, the fact remains that the southern boundary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
of the survey number is fully surrounded by reserve forest. Similarly, the eastern
boundary and western boundary is completely declared as elephant corridor, thus, the
elephant has to reach only through S.No.247/5. It is also relevant to note that in
Annexure III of the G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010, the S.No.247/5 is also
included and the same has not been challenged. Further, there were buildings in the
plantation, the Inquiry Committee had found that the buildings were used for
commercial purposes, however, had permitted the petitioners to use the portion of
the building for residential purposes. Such view of the matter, we make it clear that
no commercial activities be permitted except for owners occupation in the said
portion.
61. In WP.No.33129 of 2023 and 9790 of 2025, the main contention of the
learned senior counsel is that the buildings are only 2347 sq.ft., and 2357 sq.ft.,
respectively and the buildings are used only for residential purpose. It is the further
contention even before the inspection no notice was issued, however, such
submission was found to be false. Moreover the learned counsel appearing for the
Inquiry Committee has produced before us the video of the learned senior counsels
submitting before the Inquiry Committee and agreeing to be present during the
inspection on the very next day. Thereafter, a letter is also issued by the writ
petitioner acknowledging the visit and inspection carried out by the Committee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
When the said letter was produced in the Court, the learned senior counsel has
admitted the letter, however, it is her further contention that measurement has not
been properly done. We had called for the records. On perusal of the records, the
Inquiry Committee had clearly recorded that measurement of the buildings are
spanning around 13066.8 sq.ft, and 6843 sq.ft., respectively and there were no valid
permission. It is further to be noted that the building permission has been obtained
only from the local bodies. As far as the building permission is concerned, as per
Chapter X-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, any building that
exceeds 250 square meters, the building permission should be given by the District
Collector. However, no such permission whatsoever was obtained, but on ground,
the Inquiry Committee had found that the buildings are spanning around 13066.8
sq.ft, and 6843 sq.ft., respectively and the facilities made available in the buildings
are a clear case of commercial exploitation. Therefore, the contention that the
building has been used for residential purposes cannot be countenanced.
62. It is also the contention of the learned senior counsel that the petitioners
are the title owners and they are having a sale agreement in their favour. We are of
the view that such contention has no legal basis. Mere agreement for sale does not
create any charge or interest over the immovable properties. Therefore, merely on the
basis of an agreement, the writ petitioner cannot claim title. Be that as it may, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
Inquiry Committee has held that the sale of the property without prior sanction from
the Committee as per Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act,
1949 is void. It is relevant to note that, in fact, the Inquiry Committee has reiterated
the statutory declaration and has not decided the title on its own. The Committee has
found that whenever there is violation of Section 3 of the TNPPF Act, 1949 and
permission is obtained from the concerned committee, such sale is declared to be
void under the Act. As long as the sale is not ratified by the authorities concerned,
such sale is not valid in the eye of law; but the fact remains that when the sale is held
to be void as per the statute, the title normally reverts back to the original vendor. In
the present cases, we are of the view that the very finding of the Committee to hand
over the possession to the Government does not arise at all. It is to be noted that
though this Court in the order passed in the Writ Petition has issued such a direction
to handover the properties, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had exercised the
appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and had rendered
its veridict on merits. The verdict of this Court thus, stood merged in the Judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Useful reference can be made to the judgment
in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359. In this case, there is no
direction by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to handover possession of the
properties and as such, to the limited extent, we are unable to agree with the Inquiry
Committee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
63. Though a purchaser without permission cannot get title in view of want of
sanction under Section 3 of the TNPPF Act, in such case, title reverts back to the
original owner, however, in the present case, even the original owner do not exercise
such powers, rather, only a person who is in possession can continue and exercise the
possessory right, as long as the original vendor has not filed any suit for recovery of
possession. Therefore the only findings of the Committee that the property should be
handed over back to the Government, we are of the view such finding is ipso facto
beyond the remit of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
64. Further, it is also to be noted that in the very Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010, the Government has clearly indicated its object in
passing the Government Order. To the first objection that the petitioners are in
ownership and possession of the land for many years, the answer by the Government
is as follows:
" The proposed notification of Elephant Corridor is only a management
activity to take care of the welfare of the elephant and other wildlife.
The notification of the elephant corridor has nothing to do with the
possession, legal ownership and rights of the petitioners"
65. 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 TNPPF
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
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.
66. In W.P.No.24928 of 2024, it is the case of the writ petitioner that the
Inquiry Committee relied on a web page and had decided the case of the petitioners
in an hasty manner holding that one of the director is a share holder in another
company situated in Kabini at Karnataka, therefore, commercial activity is being
carried on is without any evidence and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of
law. We are of the view that such a finding of the Inquiry Committee cannot be
found fault with for the simple reason that the Inquiry Committee on ground has
visited and inspected the premises and they found that large diesel generator is set up
in the premises. The very setting up of a large diesel generator itself indicates that
the property is used for commercial activities. Therefore, such contention of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
learned senior counsel cannot be countenanced. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mafatlal Industries (cited supra) has held that when any guest houses are maintained
by a company or commercial undertaking on the other hand is a part of its
commercial venture and such premises by no stretch of imagination can be held to be
meant for exclusive use as private residential premises.
67. It is also the contention of the learned senior counsel in WP.Nos.8326 of
2023 and 24928 of 2024 that the buildings are less than 2500 sq.ft., and they are used
only for residential purposes. We had called for the records. On perusal of the
records, it would clearly indicate that the buildings are spanning around 4260 sq.ft.,
and 6843 sq.ft., respectively and the facilities made available in the buildings are
clear case of commercial exploitation. Therefore, the contention that the buildings
are used for residential purposes cannot be countenanced.
68. It is also to be noted that the writ petitioner being a company submitted
that it is using the building as private residential premises. Company being a
corporate entity, we are of the view that when any guest houses are maintained by a
company or commercial undertaking on the other hand is a part of its commercial
venture and such premises by no stretch of imagination can be held to be meant for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
exclusive use as private residential premises. This proposition has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs.
Mafatlal Industries and others reported in AIR 1996 SC 1541. The relevant portion in
paragraph 4 of the judgment same reads as follows:
“4. ... The guest houses are maintained by company or commercial
undertaking on the other hand as a part of its commercial venture
and such premises by no stretch of imagination can be held to be
meant for exclusive use as private residential premises. ...."
69. Though Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned senior counsel contended that only
his vendor has constructed the building and he has no role, it is relevant to note that
the very purchase itself was made after the entire area has been declared as elephant
corridor. Further, when the building has no plan and put up unauthorisedly, merely,
because subsequent purchase of such building; such unauthorised construction will
not be regularised automatically. Unauthorised construction will always remain as
unauthorised. Therefore, the petitioner as a matter of right cannot contend that since
he has purchased the above building, he is entitled to use the building for residential
purposes. It is also to be noted that the so-called permission said to have obtained
from the Committee headed by the District Collector is revoked vide proceedings in
Rc.No.13525/2012 by the District Collector, Nilgiris and the petitioner's land falls
within the elephant corridor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
70. When the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that no commercial
activities are permitted in the elephant corridor, merely, because the petitioner had
purchased such huge property, it cannot be said that the properties are only used for
residential purposes. During submissions, it is the submissions of the learned senior
counsel that the petitioner will use the building for retreat and educating pastors.
Educating pastors in the form of retreat, we are of the view that such activities will
definitely come within the commercial activities and such things cannot be permitted
in the elephant corridor as the same will cause great hindrance in movements of the
elephants. The entire question has be to considered from an environmental
perspective. The Object is only to permit the natural inhabitants who carry on the
native and ordinary activities in the area and to prevent alien, incompatible activities
which pose existential threat. The resorts/retreats, whether occupied by officials and
owners, religious persons or tourists, all amount to intrusion into the corridor
affecting the movement and ecosystem.
71. In WP.No.26182 of 2023, it is the contention of the petitioner before the
Inquiry Committee that the survey number No.114/1 was not included in
G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010, since, the survey number is not notified, the
Inquiry Committee finding that the boundary description will prevail over is without
any basis. It is the further contention that no commercial activities were carried out
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
in the residential premises.
72. It is relevant to note that the entire Sigur Plateau Region in The Niligiris
District is an elephant corridor; even the Hon'ble Apex Court while disposing the
appeals in Civil Appeal Nos.3438-3439 of 2020 has clearly approved the factual
findings recorded by this Court in writ petition which was the subject matter of the
challenge before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Paragraph 41 of the order reads as follows:
“41. The second limb of the appellants’ submissions comprises of
questions about the scientific accuracy of the Expert Committee’s
Report and contentions that the dimensions as well as the location of
the single corridor identified therein are at odds with authoritative
scientific publications. It has been argued by the appellants that their
resorts and other establishments do not fall within the historic
corridors identified in these publications. These assertions were dealt
with by the High Court which held that there was material on record
to show presence of elephants as well as a past incident of human-
elephant conflict, which resulted in the death of a French tourist, in
the region where the appellants’ resorts are located. The High Court
also held that any absence of elephants from the areas surrounding
the appellants’ resorts was, in fact, due to the construction activities
of the appellants whereby access of the elephants has been restricted
through erection of electric fencing. We see no reason to interfere
with the above factual findings of the High Court and also do not find
fault in the State Government’s adoption of the recommendations of
the High Court-appointed Expert Committee, through the impugned
G.O.
73. The contention with regard to the fact that their resorts and other
establishments do not fall within the historic corridors identified in these
publications was already raised in the above appeal, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has in fact approved the findings of this Court. Be that as it may, once again,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
the Inquiry Committee had conducted inspection, it is to be noted that the Inquiry
Committee was headed by a retired judge of this Court, viz., Hon'ble Mr.Justice
K.Venkatraman (Retd.) with two other experts in the field. They inspected the
properties in the presence of the writ petitioners along with the officials of the
Revenue, Forest and Panchayats in the surrounding landscape as well. Through
inspection, the Committee also conducted random sign survey to ascertain
movements of wild animals and found pile of elephants dung in the passage
indicating the movements of elephants through the subject lands. The Committee
also scrutinized the report of this Court, appointed Expert Committee headed by
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden, Chennai and
found that though survey numbers are not included specifically while passing the
Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010, but the fact remains that the
District Collector, The Niligiris had already sent proposal long back to include the
omitted survey numbers which were not included in the Government Order in
RC.No.U6/55722/2006 dated 28.04.2018. The said proposal somehow is kept
pending by the Government.
74. Be that as it may, we had also seen the entire map. All other survey
numbers notified as elephant corridors are adjacent to the properties. Therefore, mere
omission of the survey numbers in the Government Order as a notification, one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
cannot contend that the elephants will never use such survey numbers as a passage.
When the surrounding area is declared as a corridor and elephants are using that area
as a passage, we are of the view that mere omission of survey numbers will not have
any serious impact. The boundary mentioned in Annexure II in G.O.Ms.No.125
makes it very clear that the southern boundary of the elephant corridor starts at the
foothill of the The Niligiris mountains and finally runs into the Sigur Reserve Forest.
It is a trite law that though survey numbers are not included, the boundary will
prevail. The entire area situated in particular landscape which is predominantly the
elephant corridor, mere omission of one or two survey numbers will not elevate that
survey numbers outside the elephant corridor, when the survey number fall within
the boundary and sketch, therefore, that contention cannot be countenanced. The
boundaries of the corridor is clearly earmarked and the properties of the writ
petitioners fall within the boundaries. In some cases (W.P.Nos.4448, 25412, 25457,
1777, 25414, 3941, 22933 of 2024, 23478 of 2025 & 26182 of 2023), the lands of
the writ petitioners are the only pieces of lands between the boundary of the corridor
and the reserve forest. If these stand alone pieces of lands are left out, the very
integrity of the corridor itself will be violated and as such, after on-ground
assessment, these survey numbers were also included in the notification and the same
are done with due application of mind and as such, the argument that only the
boundary alone is to be considered these lands are to be left out cannot be accepted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
75. The main challenge in the writ petition in WP.No.27924 of 2024 is with
regard to the dismissal order passed by the District Collector against the application
filed by the petitioner under Section 4-A for sanction of purchaser. The petitioner has
purchased the subject properties under five sale deeds registered between the year
2001 and 2004. Admittedly, the petitioner has purchased the properties in
contravention of Section 3 of the TNPPF Act. Section 3 of the TNPPF Act mandates
no owner of any forest shall without the previous sanction of the Committee/District
Collector shall alienate the lands of the forest. In other words, any alienation without
the permission from the District Collector is void. Section 4-A has been inserted in
the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 vide Act No.8 of 2015
(Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests (Amendment) Act, 2011) with effect
from 22.07.2015. Pursuant to the amendment brought under the Tamil Nadu
Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949, viz., in light of Section 4-A, the petitioner
has made application for ratifying the sales and the District Collector vide impugned
order dismissed the applications.
76. It is relevant to note that once the petitioner has violated a law, viz.,
Section 3 of the TNPPF Act, as a a matter of right, he cannot seek for ratification,
particularly, in view of the further developments. Admittedly, the entire area has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
been declared as an elephant corridor and all the commercial activities has been
banned, that apart hindrance in the passage of the elephant should not be there. The
G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010 is also upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Therefore, once the entire area has been declared as migratory path of the elephants,
now, the petitioner cannot seek ratification as a matter of right in view of Section 4-
A of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Forests Act. This apart, Section 7 also
contemplates that the sale in contravention of Section 3 is a criminal offence. The
purchase of the petitioner itself is a product of crime. Therefore, in that context,
Section 4-A is nothing but a benevelonce, that is to be conferred by the authorities in
extraordinary situation where the interest of justice so requires, it cannot be
exercised in a routine manner or in every case where petitioner seek for ratification.
77. If the petitioner's property does not fall within the elephant corridor and
just notified as a private forests under the TNPPF Act, in that case, the case of
petitioner seeking ratification is well founded, whereas, once the entire area has been
declared as an elephant corridor in the interest of the wildlife particularly asian
elephants is a paramount consideration. When the sale is held to be void as per the
statute, title normally reverts back to the vendor; however, as long as the petitioner is
in possession, he can remain in possession and his possessory rights will be
protected unless the original owner has not filed any suit for recovery of possession.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
78. Such view of the matter, since, the petitioner is in continuous possession,
the petitioner shall remain in the land and use the lands in an eco-friendly manner
without causing any disturbance to the elephants by erecting any artificial barriers
such as electrical fences, power fences, solar fences etc., We make it clear that the
area will not be permitted for any commercial activities.
79. In all the other writ petitions, arguments were also advanced by the
respective learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the issues as discussed
above. Since these writ petitions also assail the findings rendered by the Inquiry
Committee in relation to either 'plan of action report', 'twin action taken reports',
'variance in acreage' or 'arbitrary sealing of the resorts notwithstanding the existence
of valid title and approvals' and also the demolition orders passed by the Executive
Authority of concerned Panchayat, this Court deems it appropriate to record its
common findings and the reasons thereof on an issue-wise basis.
Similar treatment as Mr.Alok Guptha
80. It is also contended that a similarly situated person namely Alok Guptha
was given an exemption and the same exemption should be meted out to the
petitioners also. It is to be noted that on examination of papers and on inspection, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
Inquiry Committee has recorded the fact that the building of Alok Guptha was not
used for commercial purposes and used as residential premises. Therefore, merely,
because, an exemption was granted to the neighboring owner, wherein, no
commercial activities were found out by the authorities, it cannot be said that same
treatment should be given to all others who are using the premises for commercial
purposes.
Appeal under Section 80-A of the Town and Country Planning Act
81. As far as the appeal filed by the respective petitioners under Section 80-A
of the Town and Country Planning Act against the sealing order is concerned, this
Court is of the view that the very filing of the appeal after the matter is seized by the
Court and selectively passing the order by the authorities is nothing but only in order
to patronize somebody.
Electricity Consumption
82. Though petitioners in several writ petitions contended that electricity
consumption are meager and they are not carrying on any commercial activities, this
Court is of the view that the electricity charges cannot be a sole criterion to decide
whether the petitioners are running commercial activities or not otherwise. The
Inquiry Committee, on ground has found that the petitioners are using the premises
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
for commercial purposes.
Grant of permission
83. It is relevant to note that there are specific provisions available under the
Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 with regard to grant of permission
under Section 217-D to Chapter X-A. Section 217-DD makes it clear that for any
building which exceeds 250 square meters, the building permission should be given
by the District Collector and under 250 square meters, the Executive Authority can
issue building permission. The parties have obtained planning permission from the
Executive Authority/local body under Section 217-DD as if the building is below
250 sq. mts and several building planning have been obtained and converted the
building as commercial building which itself is nothing but fraud played by the
parties to run the commercial activities. When the building is used for any other
purposes other than what is specified in license, the license itself can be cancelled by
the authorities under Section 217-E of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act,
1920. Section 217-J also empowers the authorities to take action to demolish such
building which is constructed in violation of provisions of law. Therefore, when the
massive violations have taken place and permissions have been obtained under the
pretext of residential building and converting the use of the building for commercial
purposes, it cannot be said that all the permissions granted by the Executive
Authority should be legalised. The mass construction in the forest area particularly in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
the main elephant corridor area indicate the fact that the Executive Authority of the
particular village has joined hands in glove with the private resort owners in
allowing several constructions to come up in the pristine area.
84. With regard to the contention of one of the learned senior counsel that
once an approval is obtained from the building once a building is constructed with a
plinth area below 250 square meters, the requirement under law is only to obtain
permission from the local panchayat. If at all the owner proposed to put an additional
construction, he may seek permission from the Panchayat once again, the Panchayat
would get the necessary endorsement from the AAA Committee before granting
approval. No doubt, first proviso to Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building
Rules, 1997 clearly prescribes the procedure and conditions for obtaining building
permission within Panchayat limits and mandates compliance not only in respect of
the initial construction but also for any subsequent additions or alterations. First
Proviso to Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997 reads as
follows:
“4. Application for approval of sites for buildings and huts.
...
Provided that the construction or reconstruction or addition or
alteration to residential houses, all such other public buildings like
commercial buildings, hotels, resorts and factory buildings exceeding a
plinth area of 250 square metres in the Panchayats of Nilgiris District
shall be approved by the Executive Authority after obtaining the
permission of the Committee for Architectural and Aesthetic Aspects
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
headed by the Collector of the Nilgiris district”
85. The above proviso makes it clear that the Panchayat is not an independent
sanctioning authority in such matters within notified sensitive zones, and the
endorsement of the AAA Committee is a sine qua non. Merely because the Executive
Authority has not obtained permissions from the AAA Committee headed by the
District Collector as contemplated in the above proviso to Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu
Panchayat Building Rules, 1997, this Court is of the firm view that such license
granted by the Executive Authority of concerned Panchayat cannot be legalised and
the commercial activities cannot be permitted in the elephant corridor causing
hindrance of their movements.
Notification in S.O.No.4498 (E) dated 17.12.2019
86. Much emphasis has been made to the notification in Notification in
S.O.No.4498 (E) dated 13.12.2019 issued by Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change permitting the commercial activities in eco-sensitive zones. We have
also gone through the notification. Clause 3(a) of the notification makes it clear that
all new eco-tourism activities or expansion of existing tourism activities within the
Eco-sensitive Zone shall be as per the Tourism Master Plan for the Eco-sensitive
zone. We are of the view that the objections of the said notification cannot be
extended to persons who have violated all the building norms and indulged in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
commercial activities in the area which is already notified as private forest under the
TNPPF Act.
87. It is also to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 40 in the
Civil Appeal Nos.3438 to 3439 of 2020 vide order dated 14.10.2020 has held has
follows:
"40. Furthermore, since the impugned decision of the High Court, the
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change vide its
Notification S.O. 4498(E) dated 13.12.2019 has declared the entire
area in question and adjoining areas around the Mudumalai Tiger
Reserve as an Eco-Sensitive Zone. Under this Notification, the State
Government of Tamil Nadu has been expressly directed to regulate land
use generally, as well commercial establishment of hotels/resorts
specifically, in the Eco-Sensitive Zone so established. As was held by
this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. 3 the
“Precautionary Principle” has been accepted as a part of the law of
our land. Articles 21, 47, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India
give a clear mandate to the State to protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. It
is the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests and wild life and to have compassion for
living creatures. The Precautionary Principle makes it mandatory for
the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of
environmental degradation. In this light, we have no hesitation in
holding that in order to protect the elephant population in the Sigur
Plateau region, it was necessary and appropriate for the State
Government to limit commercial activity in the areas falling within
the elephant corridor"
88. Therefore, once again, very same arguments cannot be pressed into
service. Further, while passing the clarification order in MA.Nos.2108 – 2109 of
2024 seeking clarifications in Civil Appeal Nos. 3438 – 3439 of 2020 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
20.12.2024 has clearly clarified that by examining the question of scope or the remit
of the Inquiry Committee, the findings recorded by this Court, including findings on
issues and contentions which could have been raised but were not raised by any of
the parties, will not be examined or decided by the High Court. Therefore, when the
parties have already raised submissions before the Hon'ble Apex Court and
also, they could have raised the issue that were not raised, now, they cannot be
permitted to raise the same ground.
Directions with regard to the vacating and demolition
89. As far as the planning permission is concerned, though the petitioners had
relied upon the planning permission, it is relevant to note that under Chapter X-A of
the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, any building which exceeds 250
square meters, the building permission should be given by the District Collector and
to avoid such aspects, planning permission was conveniently obtained from the
Executive Authority in different applications and construction was put up in larger
extent for commercial purposes, different planning permissions were obtained only
to avoid legal restrictions. When the building was used for commercial purposes
after obtaining residential permission, such a license cannot be said to be valid in the
eye of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
90. When the building was constructed violating the provisions of the law and
having obtained planning permission for residential purposes, thereafter, using it for
commercial activities, such building in the eye of law is not legally constructed and
the same cannot be permitted particularly keeping in view that the commercial
activities should be completely stopped in the area for free movement of elephants.
91. The very intention and object behind bringing the elephant corridor is to
protect the elephants. While disposing the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraph 35 in Civil Appeal Nos.3438 to 3439 of 2020 vide order dated 14.10.2020
has held as follows:
" 35. Legal intervention in preservation of these corridors has been
necessitated because wildlife corridors are threatened by various
social, economic and anthropogenic factors, as noted above.
Commercial activities such as running of private resorts and
construction of new buildings with barbed and electric fences within
elephant corridors pose a serious threat of fragmentation and
destruction of habitats. The long-term survival of the species depends
on maintaining viable habitats and connecting corridors which
maintain variance in the species’ gene pool and avoid other risks
associated with habitat fragmentation and isolation of species.
Emphasis supplied
92. Therefore, the above dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court makes it very clear
that commercial activities shall not be allowed in the corridor. However, the Hon'ble
Apex Court taking note of the submissions that certain resorts owners have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
permissions and their lands are outside the area declared as corridor has in fact
constituted a committee to look into the issue and the Committee has found on
personal inspection that large scale of commercial activities which are rampant and
the building permissions have been misused as buildings were used for different
purposes, all these facts lead to only fact that all the resort owners set up building to
get permissions under the pretext of residential building and using it for commercial
purposes which cannot be permitted in the eye of law. Though property rights of the
parties also arises, the fact remains that commercial activities can never be permitted
which causes hindrance to the movements of the elephants. Therefore, the order of
demolition of the illegal construction in view of this Court does not require
interference, however, the direction to hand over the possession of the property to
the Government alone cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The parties who
purchased the lands and using the lands for agricultural purposes are free to hold the
lands in eco-friendly manner without causing any disturbance to the elephants,
without any artificial barriers such as electrical fences, power fences, solar fences
etc.,
93. Most of the private patta land owners' lands were already notified under
the TNPPF Act. That apart, as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
'Corridors are narrow and linear patches of forest which establish and facilitate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
connectivity across habitats’. Such view of the matter, in order to protect the
elephants free movement, the commercial activities should be completely banned in
the elephant corridor. In paragraph 35, the Hon'ble Supreme has held as follows:
" 35. Legal intervention in preservation of these corridors has been
necessitated because wildlife corridors are threatened by various
social, economic and anthropogenic factors, as noted above.
Commercial activities such as running of private resorts and
construction of new buildings with barbed and electric fences within
elephant corridors pose a serious threat of fragmentation and
destruction of habitats. The long-term survival of the species depends
on maintaining viable habitats and connecting corridors which
maintain variance in the species’ gene pool and avoid other risks
associated with habitat fragmentation and isolation of species."
94. Taking note of the fact that large scale of private lands are declared as
corridor and all electric fences and barbed wires are prohibited, we are aware that it
is very difficult for the land owners to continue their avocation particularly activities
like agriculture, plantation etc., Hence, we place on record the following facts where
the Government has taken different stands in these matters at different stages. When
a writ petition was filed in W.P.No.10098 of 2008 before this Court, the stand of the
Government before a Division Bench of this Court is that the tribals and other forest
dwellers residing within the corridor, their rights will be protected and they will not
be evicted from the corridor and the remaining private patta lands will be acquired by
the State Government to ensure that the corridor is free from any outsiders, except
the tribals or other forest dwellers. Based on the said submission, this Court vide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
order dated 10.09.2009 has recorded as follows:
" "4. After hearing the parties, prima facie, it appears that the following
procedure may required to be followed:
(i) Forest department, which has the knowledge of movement of
elephants in the corridor, may identify and inform the same;
(ii) the State Government may publish the information regarding
the elephant corridor and the area, in leading newspapers and also by
drum beating/tom tom, calling for objections of locals, if any, in the
area in question;
(iii) after hearing the locals, particularly those who may be
affected, they may finalise the elephant corridor from which
unauthorised occupants are to be evicted;
(iv) to ensure that scheduled tribes and other forest traditional
dwellers are not affected, it is required to identify the other traditional
forest dwellers in terms with the Scheduled Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Tribes) Rules,
2007; and
(v) only after the recommendation and recording their names in
the appropriate register, they may proceed with eviction, by giving
notice in the newspaper, by drum beating/tom tom and by giving
individual notice to the unauthorised occupants.
5. So far as the acquisition of the land is concerned, if any
private land is required to be acquired, they will have to follow the
procedure under the Land Acquisition Act. Prima facie, as the tribals
and other forest dwellers cannot be evicted from the unauthorised
lands, their lands need not required to be acquired, if it is a forest land.
Learned counsel for the parties are requested to give further suggestion
in the matter, in the interest of public and elephants."
95. It is also relevant to note that the then Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests has filed an Additional Reply Affidavit on behalf of the Government in
WP.No.10098 of 2008, dated 08.09.2008, wherein, it is clearly stated that there are
some private lands in patches in the Moyar Elephant corridor area which is essential
for free movement of elephant. Hence, the acquisition of private patta lands to an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
extent of 515.22 acres at a cost of Rs.1545.66 lakhs has been proposed. Similarly,
another important Elephant Corridor Kallar-Jaccanari is also proposed to be
acquired. The Government has accepted in-principle for acquisition of 583.42 acres
of patta land for elephant corridor, the amount required to acquire is 19.36 crores.
Therefore, it was decided to send a proposal to the Government of India to allot 10
crores under Project Elephant for the year 2008-2009. In this regard, it is further
stated that the proposal is under active consideration of the Government. The District
Collector, The Nilgiris who filed a counter also reiterated the proposal for
acquisition of land. When the writ petition came up on 13.09.2008 before the First
Bench presided by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court, the said submission was
made before this Court and the same is recorded as follows:
" 3. Learned Government pleader appearing for the State submits that
the State Government will forward such a proposal to the Central
Government within two weeks from date. On the basis of the said
proposal to be sent by the State Government, the Central Government
will communicated its response to the State Government and an
affidavit to that effect should be filed before us by the learned Standing
Counsel for the Central Government within four weeks after the
reopening of the Court. In the meantime the District Collector, The
Niligiris is directed to remove all encroachments from the revenue land
which has been identified for development of the Elephant Corridor."
96. Thereafter, an Expert Committee was set up in pursuance to the direction
of this Court in WP.No.10098 of 2008, 2762 & 2839 of 2009 to identify the elephant
corridor, wherein, the Expert Committee has clearly suggested that all the private
land and estate land shall also be notified as Reserved Forests, as soon as such areas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
are acquired by the Government. Similarly, also suggested that all the revenue lands
to be transferred to the Forest Department shall also be notified as Reserved Forests
under the provision of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882.
97. The Government having accepted the report of the Expert Committee and
identified the elephant corridor very conveniently failed to honor their commitment
to acquire the private lands for the reasons best known to them. In fact, the
Government has issued a Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.93, Environment and
Forests (FR.V) Department dated 21.08.2007 for acquisition of patta lands in Kallar-
Jacannari corridor. Similarly, the Government has issued a Government Order in
G.O.(Ms).No.154, Environment and Forests (FR.V) Department dated 15.11.2011
for the acquisition of patta land in Moyar Elephant corridor. Later, the Government
issued a Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.97, Environment and Forests (FR.V)
Department dated 28.03.2012 withdrawing the G.O.Ms.No154 dated 15.11.2011. In
fact, a writ petition was filed before this Court in WP.No.27734 of 2011 and the
same was disposed on 10.04.2012 recording the submission made by Mr.P.S.Raman,
learned senior counsel for the petitioner therein that the Government has passed
G.O.(Ms).No.97, Environment and Forests (FR.V) Department dated 28.03.2012
withdrawing the G.O.Ms.No154 dated 15.11.2011 and has also given an assurance
that they will go on with the implementation of the project as per the order of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
Court dated 07.04.2011 passed in WP.No.10098 of 2008 etc., batch notified in
G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010 in the interest of wild life, particularly elephants,
so as to notify and improve the elephant corridor.
98. It is relevant to note that this Court in WP.No.10098 of 2008 vide order
dated 07.04.2011 has clearly recorded the stand of the Government for acquiring the
land. It is the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that this Court
in paragraph 23 of the order dated 03.12.2009 in WP.No.10098 of 2008, has held as
follows:
" 23. On such finalisation, it will be open for the State to decide:
(a) Whether the private lands which are falling within the
Elephant Corridor, do not belong to Scheduled Tribes and other
traditional forest dwellers, who have a right under the provisions of the
Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition
of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and whether such lands should be acquired.
If the decision is taken to acquire the lands, they will follow the regular
procedures as laid down under the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act.
(b) If the State Government, in the meantime, wants to take over
the management of the private forest, it may do so in terms of Section
3of the Tamil Nadu Private Forests (Assumption of Management) Act
(LV of 1961), so as to enable the elephants to pass through the corridor
without any hindrance till the lands are acquired."
99. It is relevant to note that after seven months of disposal of the above writ
petition in WP.No.10098 of 2008 dated 07.04.2011, when a writ petition was filed in
WP.No.27734 of 2011, counter affidavit has been filed by the Principal Secretary to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
Government, Environment and Forests Department dated 30.01.2012, wherein, it is
their stand that for acquiring the patta lands in Moyar Valley Elephant Corridor and
Kallar-Jaccanari Elephant Corridor, the Government of India sanctioned a sum of
Rs.400 lakhs under the scheme of Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats. Out
of sanctioned amount, the Government of Tamil Nadu accorded administrative
sanction and released a sum of Rs.325 lakhs as first instalments towards the
expenditure for the implementation of project. The relevant paragraph reads as
follows:
" 7) It is respectfully submitted that the Government of India sanctioned
Rs.400.00 lakhs under the scheme of Integrated Development of
Wildlife Habitats for acquiring of patta lands in Mayor Valley Elephant
Corridor and Kallar Jaccanari Elephant Corridor for the year 2008-
09. Out of the sanctioned said amount, the Government of Tamil Nadu
accorded administrative sanction for 400.00 lakhs and released a sum
of Rs.325 lakhs as first installment towards the expenditure for the
implementation of the project. The negotiation for acquisition of land
with the concerned parties have been pursued by the Committee. After
following all the procedures, out of 76.95 acres of patta lands, an extent
of 13.49 acres of patta land falling in S.No.236/1 of Jaccanarai village
has been registered in the name of District Forest Officer, Nilgiris
North Division on 28.03.2011 and an expenditure of Rs.70 lakhs has
been incurred. Action on the Survey No.246/2 and 246/3 for the balance
area of 63.46 acres is under process."
100. The above would clinchingly indicate the stand of the State Government
is to go for acquisition. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
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.
RESULTS
101. In view thereof, all the writ petitions stand disposed of in the following
terms:-
a) The findings of the Inquiry Committee stand confirmed, except for the
finding with regard to the handing over of the properties to the Government. The
parties who purchased the lands are free to hold the lands/cultivate in an eco-friendly
manner without causing any disturbance to the elephants, without any artificial
barriers such as electrical fences, power fences, solar fences etc.;
b) Having decided to acquire the lands of the parties, the Government cannot
go back. As the rights of the private patta owners are also at stake, we are of the view
that the Government has to necessarily balance the rights of the parties by acquiring
the lands of the private patta land owners. Therefore, in order to safeguard the rights
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
of the petitioners, we direct the State Government to initiate the acquisition
proceedings in respect of the private lands which are notified in G.O.Ms.No.125,
Environment and Forest (FR.5) Department dated 31.08.2010 and other lands in
which comes within the sketch and boundaries and also the lands in respect of which
proposal is also sent by the District Collector in RC.No.U6/55722/2006 dated
28.04.2018. Now, it is also stated by the learned Special Government Pleader
(Forests) that a team is constituted for the demarcation of boundaries, verification of
ownership records, correlation with FMB sketches and GPS-based mapping to
establish the exact location of the missing survey numbers.
c) Further, since the entire landscape is an highly sensitive area and comes
within the Niligiris Biosphere spanning around 5000 square meters, keeping the
revenue lands adjacent to the elephant corridor, sanctuary and buffer zone will only
lead to further destruction, encroachments and developmental activities. Therefore,
this Court in the paramount interest of preserving the forests/corridor and its eco-
system also directs the State Government to notify all the revenue lands which are
situated adjacent to elephant corridor, sanctuary, buffer zone in and around
Mudumalai Tiger Reserve as Reserved Forests under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act,
1882 to the Forest Department; in tune with the recommendation of the Expert
Committee dated 13.10.2009 even before notifying the elephant corridor in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010.
d) Let the acquisition proceedings be completed in a phased manner so that the
grievances of the parties are addressed, since all commercial activities are completely
banned in the area. The acquisition proceedings shall be initiated immediately, no
later than six months from the receipt of a copy of this Order.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions stand closed.
(N.S.K.,J.) (D.B.C.,J.)
12.09.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
dhk
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
The State of Tamil Nadu
Environment, Climate Change and Forests Department
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009
2.The Chairman
The Segur Plateau Elephant Corridor Inquiry Committee
Forestry Extension Campus
Gymkhana Club Road
Finger Post, Udhagamandalam – 643 006
The Niligiris District, Tamil Nadu
3.The District Collector, The Niligiris District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
Collectorate, Charring Cross
Udhagamandalam – 643 001
The Niligiris.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
dhk
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
W.P.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., batch cases
12.09.2025
(1/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:52:59 pm )
