Supreme Court Denies Resort Construction in Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary to Protect Environmental Integrity.
Case title: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case no: WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO(S). 202 OF 1995
Order on: April 16, 2024
Quorum: HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Fact of the case:
M/s Shewalkar Developers Ltd. filed an application seeking permission to construct a health/eco-resort on two plots of land (Plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4) in Pachmarhi, District Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh. The total area of these plots is approximately 59,265 sq. ft. and 49,675 sq. ft. The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the applicant to approach the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) for permission to construct the resort. The CEC denied the permission, leading the applicant to file interlocutory applications before the Supreme Court.
Issues framed by court:
Whether the land in question is classified as forest land.
Whether the proposed construction of a health/eco-resort is permissible under existing laws and regulations.
Whether the refusal by the CEC to grant permission for construction is justified.
Whether the previous directions and orders related to the Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary apply to the applicant’s land.
Legal provisions:
Forest Conservation Act, 1980: Governs the use of forest land for non-forest purposes.
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972: Provides for the protection of wildlife and regulation of activities in wildlife sanctuaries.
Article 300A of the Constitution of India: Deals with the Right to property.
Contentions of Appellant:
The appellant argued that the land in question, Plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4, is not classified as forest land and has been acquired through valid title deeds. The proposed health/eco-resort would not harm the environment and is consistent with sustainable development goals. The appellant claims that the refusal by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to grant permission for construction was arbitrary and unfair. They argued that the CEC’s decision overlooked the merits of their application, including the non-forest status of the land.
Contentions of Respondents:
The respondent upholds that the land in question falls within the limits of the Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary, thereby classifying it as forest land. The respondents argued that, based on the CEC’s directions dated July 2, 2004, and previous Supreme Court orders, no commercial activity is permissible on this land without explicit permission from the Court. Respondents argued that Construction of the health/eco-resort could potentially harm the sanctuary’s ecosystem and biodiversity and in question are beyond the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ).
Court analysis & Judgement:
In the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Others, along with M/s Shewalkar Developers Ltd., the court examined the dispute over constructing a health/eco-resort on land within the Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary. Despite the applicant’s claims of non-forest land ownership and compliance with environmental regulations, the court upheld the respondent’s contention that the land fell within the sanctuary’s limits. Relying on the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, the court emphasized the need to protect forest land and wildlife sanctuaries from commercial activities without explicit court permission. Considering environmental concerns, the court ruled against M/s Shewalkar Developers Ltd., denying their request to construct the resort. This decision aligned with broader conservation efforts and upheld the principles of environmental protection and sustainable development.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh