Supreme Court of India
T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 426
- Decided
- 16 May 2024
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The applicant’s proprietary rights under Article 300A cannot be denied solely due to the pendency of a writ appeal, but any construction must be in conformity with the ESZ notification and decided by the competent authority.
Summary
M/s Shewalkar Developers Ltd. sought permission to construct a health/eco‑resort on Plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4 in Pachmarhi, Madhya Pradesh, claiming the land was not forest land and that its title, derived from a 1991 sale deed, was unchallenged. The State of Madhya Pradesh contended that the plots formed part of the Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary and lay within a notified Eco‑Sensitive Zone (ESZ), arguing that the pending writ appeal on title rights barred any construction. The Supreme Court examined the history of the land’s acquisition, the exclusion of the Nazul area from the sanctuary by earlier orders, and the fact that the applicant had never been impleaded in any revenue or high‑court proceedings. It held that the applicant’s proprietary rights under Article 300A could not be infringed merely because of the pending appeal, but any construction must comply with the ESZ notification. Consequently, the Court directed that the application for construction be decided by the Central Empowered Committee or the competent local authority, taking into account the ESZ boundaries, and disposed of the interlocutory applications.
Issues considered
- The whether Plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4 fall within the Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary and the notified Eco‑Sensitive Zone.
- Whether the pending writ appeal concerning title rights bars the applicant from obtaining permission to construct a health/eco‑resort.
- Whether the applicant’s proprietary rights under Article 300A are enforceable despite the land’s alleged classification as Nazul land or forest land.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 300A
- Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972s. Section 18(1), s. Section 21
Subjects
EnvironmentWildlife SanctuaryForest LandEco‑ResortEco‑Sensitive ZoneProprietary rightsArticle 300ALand titleNazul landCentral Empowered Committee
Judgment
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 723 : 2024 INSC 426
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad
v.
Union of India & Ors.
IA No(S). 2930 of 2010, 3963 of 2017, 160714 of 2019, 77320 of
2023 and 79064 of 2023
In
Writ Petition(Civil) No(S). 202 of 1995
16 May 2024
[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Interlocutory applications preferred by the applicant being aggrieved
by the inaction of the respondents in deciding the application filed by
the applicant seeking permission to construct a health/eco-resort on
the subject land being Plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4, falling in Sheet 2 No.
20, Civil Station, Pachmarhi, District Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh.
Headnotes
Environment – Wildlife Sanctuary – Forest Land – Permission
to construct a health/eco-resort – Applicant had preferred an
application to the Central Empowered Committee and sought
permission to construct the health/eco-resort on plot nos.
14/3 and 14/4 asserting that the said chunk of land was not a
forest land – However, the prayer made by the applicant was
not accepted whereupon, the applications under consideration
came to be filed before the Supreme Court – It was contended
by the State that the plots in question are subject matter of
litigation in writ appeal pending before the High Court and
applicant should wait the outcome of the aforesaid writ appeal:
Held: The issue raised by the State of Madhya Pradesh is with
respect to the identification of the land owned by the applicant
contending that the same forms a part of the Pachmarhi Wildlife
Sanctuary – There have been various rounds of litigation and it is
not in dispute that applicant herein was never impleaded in any of
the proceedings before the Revenue Courts or the High Court – An
order passed by the District Collector dated 09.08.2004, purportedly
covers entire area of the Plot No. 14 and the transactions done
in favour of and by one D, the sale deed executed in favour of
* Author
724 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the applicant and the mutation made in its name had never been
questioned in any Court of law – Neither the Revenue Department
nor the State Government authorities took the trouble of impleading
the applicant as party in any of the litigations – The title acquired
by the applicant over the subject plots not having been challenged,
attainted finality and thus the State cannot claim a right thereupon
simply because at some point of time, the plots came to be recorded
as Nazul lands in the revenue records – The categoric stand in
the compliance affidavit filed by the State fortifies the claim of the
applicant that these plots are falling under the urban area – In this
background, the appellant is justified in claiming that its proprietary
rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution cannot
be infringed merely on account of the pending writ appeal before
the High Court – Nonetheless, the applicant would satisfy the
authorities that the plots in question are beyond the Eco-Sensitive
Zone – Therefore, it is directed that the application filed by the
applicant for raising construction on plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4 shall
be decided objectively by the CEC/Competent Authority of the
local body keeping in view the location of the land with reference
to the notified boundaries of the ESZ. [Paras 8, 19, 20, 21, 23]
List of Acts
Wild Life(Protection) Act, 1972; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Environment; Wildlife Sanctuary; Forest Land; Permission to
construct a health/eco-resort; Eco-Sensitive Zone; Proprietary
rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: IA Nos. 2930 of 2010, 3963 of
2017, 160714 of 2019, 77320 of 2023 and 79064 of 2023
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
Appearances for Parties
K. Parameshwar, A.C., M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Kanti, Ms. Aarti Gupta,
Chinmay Kalgaonkar, Ms. Musharraf Chawdhary, M/s. Lawyer S
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 725
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
Knit & Co, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, M/s. PLR Chambers and Co.,
Syed Mehdi Imam, T. Harish Kumar, M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co., Advs.
for the Petitioner.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., K.M. Natraj, A.S.G., Nalin Kohli, Sr.
A.A.G, Saurabh Mishra, Shiv Mangal Sharma, Vaibhav Srivastava,
A.A.Gs., D.S. Naidu, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Ms. Archana Pathak
Dave, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Ravindra Kumar, Sr Advs., Gurmeet
Singh Makker, Ms. Archana Pathank Dave, Ms. Suhashini Sen, S. S.
Rebello, Shyam Gopal, Raghav Sharma, Sughosh Subramanyam, Ms.
Ruchi Kohli, Shuvodeep Roy, Saurabh Tripathi, Ms. Nimisha Menon,
Ms. Shruti Agrawal, Sumit Kumar, Neeraj Shekhar, Animesh Kumar,
Amrendra Singh, Ram Bachan Choudhary, Rajeev Nandkishore R.
Kumar, Kartik Kumar, Mrs. Kshama Sharma, Mrs. Priya Pramar,
Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Niranjan Swami, Raj Kishor Choudhary,
Gaichangpou Gangmei, V. Balachandran, S. C. Birla, P. R. Ramasesh,
Mrs. Bina Gupta, M/s. Parekh & Co., M/s. K J John and Co, H. S.
Parihar, Ms. Baby Krishnan, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Shibashish Misra,
Umesh Bhagwat, Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, E. C. Agrawala, Kuldip
Singh, Ranjan Mukherjee, K. V. Vijayakumar, P. N. Gupta, Sarad
Kumar Singhania, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar,
Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Ashok Mathur, Rajat Joseph, Gopal
Prasad, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Raj Kumar Mehta, M/s. M. V. Kini &
Associates, T. Mahipal, Ms. S. Janani, M/s. Arputham Aruna and Co,
Surya Kant, E. C. Vidya Sagar, Amit Anand Tiwari, Ms. Adviteeya,
Rakesh K. Sharma, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Manoranjan Paikaray,
P. K. Tripathy, Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,
P. Parmeswaran, Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Rajeev
Singh, Prashant Kumar, Ramesh Babu M. R., Vikrant Singh Bais,
Shiva Pujan Singh, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Kamal Mohan Gupta,
Sudarsh Menon, Rajesh, M/s. Corporate Law Group, Lakshmi Raman
Singh, Rajesh Singh, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Gunmaya S Mann, M. C.
Dhingra, Ejaz Maqbool, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Ms. Abha R. Sharma,
Abhishek Chaudhary, Himanshu Shekhar, Parth Shekhar, Ms. Ambali
Vedasen, Ms. Rachna Ranjan, Shubham Singh, Vijay Singh, Partap
Ranjan, Ugranath Kumar, Mahabir Singh, Vivek Kumar, Vishal Prasad,
Surajit Paul, Rajat Sinha Roy, Sameer Mehndiratta, Gyanesh Kumar
Maheshwari, Ms. Monica Haseja, Bacha Babu Mistry, Md Sontu
Mia, Ms. Moni Tomar, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Bhavanishankar V.
Gadnis, A. Venayagam Balan, Vishwanath Gadnis, Gaurav Pal, C.
726 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
L. Sahu, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Ms. Surabhi Singh, S. R. Setia,
Ms. Charu Mathur, Rajiv Mehta, T. V. George, Krishnanand Pandeya,
Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Sudhir Kulshreshtha, E. M. S. Anam, Ms.
K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, T. N. Singh, Punit Dutt Tyagi, Rathin Das,
Irshad Ahmad, G. Prakash, Ms. Binu Tamta, B V Deepak, Gopal
Singh, Sudhir Kumar Gupta, A. N. Arora, Ms. Malini Poduval, Ms.
C. K. Sucharita, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Mohd.
Irshad Hanif, Amar Kumar Raizada, Mrs. Sushma, P. V. Yogeswaran,
Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Ms. A. Sumathi, Jai Prakash Pandey, Ajit
Pudussery, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, Pankaj
Kumar Singh, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Brij Pal, Vivek Sharma, V.S.
Dubey, K. L. Janjani, Naresh K. Sharma, Tarun Johri, Radha Shyam
Jena, Ram Swarup Sharma, Ms. Sushma Suri, Mrs. Rani Chhabra,
Ms. Divya Roy, M. Yogesh Kanna, Nishanth Patil, M/s. Venkat Palwai
Law Associates, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vivek Jain, Parth Awasthi,
Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta,
Tarun Gupta, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Siddhant
Yadav, Chirag M. Shroff, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Siddharth Dharmadhikari,
Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya
Krishna, Mayank Aggarwal, Sanjeev Kumar, Naik H.K., Manoj Kumar
Sharma, Mrs. Sarbani Kar, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra,
Somesh Chandra Jha, Siddhartha Jha, M/s. V. Maheshwari & Co.,
Ms. Parul Shukla, P. S. Sudheer, Ramesh Thakur, Sunny Choudhary,
Karan Bishnoi, Utkarsh Mishra, Vinod Sharma, Ms. Surbhi Mehta,
Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Aastik Dhingra, Karan Mamgain, Anurag
Tandon, Dr. Monika Gusain, P. K. Manohar, S. Gowthaman, A. Karthik,
Siddharth Sharma, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Uday
Prakash Yadav, Suhasini Sen, S S Rebello, Sughosh Subramanium,
Naveen Kumar, James P. Thomas, Sunil Kumar Sharma, Ms. Swati
Ghildiyal, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Krishna Ballabh Thakur, Tushar Kumar,
Kaushlendra Kumar, Ms. Rashmi Kumari, Ms. Prity Kumari, Rajul
Srivastava, Abhishek Prashad, Ramesh Allanki, Ms. Aruna Gupta,
B. K. Pal, Ms. Shalini Kaul, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Ms. Anu K Joy,
Alim Anvar, Nishit Agrawal, Romy Chacko, Robin V.s., Sachin Singh
Dalal, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Ms. Tayade Pranali Gowardhan, Ms.
Shireesh Tyagi, Aniket Singh, Shubhranshu Padhi, Ms. Deepanwita
Priyanka, Raghvendra Kumar, Anand Kumar Dubey, Devvrat Singh,
Dinesh Chandra Pandey, Dushyant Dahiya, Mrs. Jyoti Pandey, Mrs.
Pragya Baghel, Sarvam Ritam Khare, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal,
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 727
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Anirudh Sanganeria, Chinmay Deshpande, Yash
Prashant Sonavane, Gopal Balwant Sathe, Aravindh S., Ms. Ekta
Muyal, Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, Atul Sharma, Renjith B. Marar, Ms.
Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Rajkumar Pavothil, Arun Poomulli, Keshavraj
Nair, Avinash Krishnakumar, Kaushik Choudhury, Ms. Mrinal Gopal
Elker, Dhaval Mehrotra, Binay Kumar Das, Ms. Priyanka Das, Ms.
Neha Das, Shivam Saksena, Vipin Kumar Saxena, Chandra Bhushan
Prasad, Abhishek Atrey, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Vidyottma Jha,
V. N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, M/s. D.S.K. Legal, Ms.
Shibani Ghosh, Rishad A Chowdhury, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar,
Saurabh Rajpal, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Ms. Shalini Singh, Sandeep
Kumar Jha, Milind Kumar, Mohit Paul, Mukesh Kumar Maroria,
Mrs. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Neeraj Kumar
Sharma, Harish Pandey, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Shashwat Parihar,
Piyush Beriwal, M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, M. R. Shamshad,
Amrish Kumar, Ms. Purnima Krishna, M.F. Philip, Karamveer Singh
Yadav, T. R. B. Sivakumar, Sujit Kumar Mishra , Ms. Adarsh Nain,
Guntur Pramod Kumar, Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, Ms. Astha Sharma, Ms.
Lihzu Shiney Konyak, Karan Sharma, Ms. Sugandha Anand , Ms.
Seita Vaidyalingam, Kumar Anurag Singh, Anando Mukherjee, Mrs.
Tulika Mukherjee, Shwetank Singh, Ajay Marwah, Ravindra S. Garia,
Shashank Singh, Madan Chandra Karnatkya, Mrs. Vidhya, Sudeep
Kumar, Gaurav Kumar Bansal, Vishnu Gupta, Ms. Nandita Bansal,
Ms. Rani Mishra, Abhimanyu Tewari, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
1. These interlocutory applications have been preferred by the applicant
M/s Shewalkar Developers Limited being aggrieved by the inaction
of the respondents in deciding the application filed by the applicant
seeking permission to construct a health/eco-resort on the subject
land being Plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4, falling in Sheet No. 20, Civil
Station, Pachmarhi, District Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh. The
total area of these two plots is around 59,265 sq. ft. and 49,675 sq.
ft., respectively.
2. The applicant herein approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court
by filing Writ Petition No. 14478 of 2006 seeking a direction to the
728 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
respondents to favourably consider the prayer of the applicant.
Vide order dated 22 nd November, 2006, the Division Bench of
Madhya Pradesh High Court permitted the applicant to approach
the Central Empowered Committee(hereinafter being referred to as
‘CEC’) constituted under the directions given by this Court in Writ
Petition(Civil) No. 202 of 1995. Consequently, the applicant preferred
an application to the CEC seeking permission to construct the health/
eco-resort on the land mentioned above asserting that the said
chunk of land was not a forest land and had been acquired under
valid title deeds and thus, the prayer for permission to construct
may be allowed. However, the prayer made by the applicant was
not accepted whereupon, the applications under consideration came
to be filed before this Court.
3. The State Government had previously taken a stand in its counter
that the land in issue falls within the limits of Pachmarhi Wildlife
Sanctuary and therefore, by virtue of the directions issued by the
CEC vide letter dated 2nd July, 2004, no commercial activity was
permissible thereupon, without the permission of this Court.
4. Much water has flown during pendency of the original application(I.A.
No.2930 of 2010) which has remained pending for almost 14 years.
For sake of convenience, a chronological flow chart of dates and
events is narrated hereinbelow in a tabular form: -
CHRONOLOGICAL FLOW CHART OF DATES AND EVENTS
BACKGROUND FACTS IN RELATION TO I.A. No.2930 of 2010
S.No. DATE EVENT
1. 01.06.1977 The Government of Madhya Pradesh notified
Pachmarhi Sanctuary under Section 18(1) of
the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 but did not
specify/demarcate the area to be included/
excluded in the Sanctuary.
2. 01.05.1991 The owner of the plots in question, Mr.
Dennis Torry obtained permission to sale
from the Government of Madhya Pradesh as
required under Clause 16 of Chapter-IV Part
1 of Revenue Book Circular issued by the
Government of Madhya Pradesh.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 729
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
3. 13.09.1991 The applicant purchased the subject plots of
land vide sale deed dated 13th September,1991.
4. 10.05.1996 In light of order dated 10th May,1996 passed by
this Court in W.P.(C) No.262 of 1995, the State
Government issued instructions to the Collector
to expedite the proceedings of settlement of
rights in National Parks/Sanctuaries.
5. 23.10.1996 In compliance of the abovementioned order,
Collector, Hoshangabad made a proclamation
under Section 21 of the Wild Life(Protection)
Act, 1972 inviting claims from the affected
persons.
6. 20.06.2000 After inviting claims and hearing the objections,
Collector, Hoshangabad passed various orders
determining the rights of the affected people
and vide order dated 20th June, 2000, Civil/
Nazul area of Pachmarhi Town was excluded
from the Sanctuary.
7. 15.12.2000 Application was preferred by the applicant
seeking mutation based on registered sale
deed dated 13th September, 1991. The SDO
directed the same to be mutated in the name
of M/s Shewalkar Developers Ltd., through
Ashutosh Shewalkar.
8. 2002 PIL bearing W.P No. 5937 of 2002 was filed
before the High Court seeking directions to
stop illegal construction activities in reserved/
protected area at Pachmarhi, wherein a six-
member Committee was constituted to examine
the issue.
9. 15.01.2004 The High Court vide interim order passed in
W.P. No. 5937 of 2002, directed that the order
of exclusion of Cantonment and Civil/Nazul
area of Pachmarhi Town and 33 revenue
villages from the Pachmarhi Sanctuary and
settlement of rights passed by the District
Collector, Hoshangabad shall remain stayed
until further orders.
730 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
10. 2005 The report of six-member Committee suggested
that Nazul area within the administrative control
of SADA and army cantonment area falling in
Pachmarhi plateau may be considered to be
deleted from the boundary of the Sanctuary.
11. 31.03.2005 The State Government following the advice of
the State Wildlife Advisory Board moved the
Government of India for seeking approval of
National Board for Wildlife(NBWL) for excluding
these areas.
12. 24.10.2005 The Standing Committee of the NBWL, vide
letter dated 24th October, 2005, recommended
exclusion of cantonment and Civil/Nazul Area.
13. 2006 The applicant approached the High Court
by filing W.P(C) No. 14478 of 2006, being
aggrieved by inaction of the respondents in
deciding the application seeking permission
to construct health/eco-resort on the subject
plots of land.
14. 22.11.2006 The High Court permitted the applicant to move
an application before the CEC.
15. 22.02.2007 The applicant preferred an application before
the CEC being I.A No. 1008 of 2007.
16. 19.09.2008 The CEC submitted a report dated 16th/19th
September, 2008 before this Court, in IA
Nos.2202-2203 of 2007, filed by the Cantonment
Board.
17. 29.03.2010 The CEC considered the application filed by
the applicant seeking permission to construct
health/eco-resort and observed that an affidavit
dated 1st February, 2010 has been filed by
the State Government clearly stating that the
applicant’s land falls within the Sanctuary
and was purchased in violation of the Wild
Life(Protection) Act, 1972. The CEC also
intimated the applicant that no recommendation
could be passed by it in absence of an order
passed by the Supreme Court.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 731
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
I.A. No.2930 of 2010 CAME TO BE FILED BEFORE
THIS COURT
S.No. DATE EVENT
1. 2010 Aggrieved by the order of CEC, the applicant
approached this Court by filing I.A. No.2930
of 2010.
2. 2011 Government of Madhya Pradesh filed an
affidavit before this Court stating that Pachmarhi
Township may be excluded from the forest area
of Pachmarhi Sanctuary so that difficulties of
the residents of Pachmarhi Township can be
sorted out.
3. 12.08.2013 This Court accepted the recommendations of
the CEC for excluding 395.939 Ha. land of
Civil/Nazul area from the sanctuary in which
the subject plots are situated.
4. 15.04.2017 The applicant moved I.A. No.3963 of 2017,
seeking to place additional documents on
record depicting functional resorts and hotels
around the area where the applicant’s plot is
situated.
5. 09.08.2017 The Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change issued ESZ notification.
6. 16.04.2018 This Court de-tagged I.A. Nos.2929-2931 of
2010 filed by the applicant herein from other
I.A.s concerning the cantonment area.
7. 04.10.2018 This Court allowed the application for
impleadment for the purposes of directions and
the application to place additional documents
on record.
8. 19.08.2019 The State Government was directed to file reply
to the interlocutory applications.
9. 27.09.2019 This Court directed that response be filed by
the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as by
the CEC.
10. 13.11.2019 The CEC was directed to examine the matter
and submit its report.
732 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
11. 16.06.2020 The CEC filed its report before this Court, in
terms of orders passed by this Court objecting
to the permission sought for by the applicant
for constructing health/eco-resort on the plots.
12. 22.11.2023 This Court directed the Collector, Hoshangabad
to file an affidavit annexing therewith a map
of the aforesaid area of 395.939 hectares
specifying as to whether the land belonging
to the applicant(s) is within those 395.939
hectares or beyond it.
The applicant was directed to place on record
as to whether it has obtained the necessary
permission for acquiring the land.
13. 13.04.2023 The applicant moved I.A. No.79064 of 2023,
seeking leave to amend the I.A. No.2930 of
2010, in light of the CEC report dated 16th
June, 2020.
14. 12.02.2024 The State Government filed compliance affidavit
in terms of order dated 22nd November, 2023.
5. Another litigation took place regarding other transactions of land done
by Dennis Torry and it will be essential to trace the history thereof.
Chronological list of events in relation to the plot are being narrated
hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference: -
5.1 The District Collector, Hoshangabad registered suo moto
revisions against the mutation orders issued in favour of Kripa
Torry and Sanjay Bhandari(purchasers of land from Dennis Torry)
and vide order dated 9th August, 2004, these revisions were
allowed holding that the transfer of land by the perpetual land
holder Rodrigues in favour of Dennis Torry on 8th September,
1977 was illegal and without force of law and thus, mutation
of land in favour of Dennis Torry was illegal. The transfer and
consequent mutation in favour of Sanjay Bhandari and Shri
Kripa Torry(son of Dennis Torry) was quashed and set aside by
the District Collector vide order dated 9th August, 2004.
5.2 The aforesaid order was challenged by the purchasers by filing
an appeal to the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh which
came to be allowed and the order dated 9th August, 2004
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 733
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
passed by the District Collector was quashed by learned Single
Member, Board of Revenue vide order dated 16th April, 2007.
5.3 The Chairman of Revenue Board registered a suo moto revision
and vide order dated 15th March, 2011, set aside the order
passed by the learned Single Member.
5.4 The land owners Shri Sanjay Bhandari and Shri Kripa Torry
preferred a Writ Petition No. 8098 of 2011 for questioning the
legality of order dated 15th March, 2011 and the said writ petition
was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court vide order dated 3rd January, 2014 thereby, reversing
the order dated 15th March, 2011 passed by the Board of Revenue.
6. This Court is apprised that the State has preferred an appeal(Writ
Appeal No. 2100 of 2019) against the order passed by the learned
Single Judge which is still pending adjudication and no order of stay
is passed in the said writ appeal.
7. The CEC has submitted a report dated 16th June, 2020 in these
proceedings objecting to the permission sought by the applicant. The
applicant has also filed objection to the report of the CEC.
8. The issue which has now been raised by the State of Madhya
Pradesh is with respect to the identification of the land owned by the
applicant contending that the same forms a part of the Pachmarhi
Wildlife Sanctuary. Considering the above contention, this Court
raised the following query on 22nd November, 2023: -
“2. We, therefore, direct the Collector, Hosangabad to file
an affidavit annexing therewith a map of the aforesaid area
of 395.939 hectares and also specify as to whether the
land belonging to the applicant(s) is within those 395.939
hectares or beyond that area.”
9. In compliance of the said direction, an affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh(also referred to as, ‘compliance
affidavit’). The relevant portions thereof are extracted hereinbelow: -
“2. That, this Hon’ble Court has raised following queries
to the respondent/State of M.P.:-
(i) To annex the map demarcating an area of 395.939
hectares of the Nazul Land falling in the Panchmarhi
734 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Plateau, which was to be excluded from the Panchmarhi
Wildlife Sanctuary as per order dated 12.08.2013 passed
by this Hon’ble Court in I.A. No.2202-2203.
In respect of aforesaid, it is pertinent to mention here that
the said map demarcating an area of 395.939 hectares
of Nazul Land falling in the Panchmarhi Plateau, the Plot
No.14/3 area 59255 sq. ft. and 14/4 area 49365 sq. ft.
are excluded from Panchmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary and the
same are within the area of 395.939 hectares and recorded
as Nazul Land in the name of State of M.P.
A true copy of colored map of is being marked and filed
herewith as Annexure A-1.
(ii) The Collector Hosangabad was directed to file an
affidavit annexing therewith a map of the aforesaid area
of 395.939 hectares and also specify as to whether the
land belonging to the applicant is within those 395.939
hectares or beyond that area.
In respect of aforesaid, it is pertinent to mention here that
the Collector, Hoshangabad vide affidavit dated 06.01.2024
stated that the land mentioned, NazulBhumi Sheet No.20,
Plot No.14/3 and 14/4, area 59255 sq. ft. and 49365 sq.
ft. total area 108900 sq. ft. is situated in Panchmarhi and
recorded as maintenance Khasra in the Government of
M.P. The plot No.14/3, 14/4 is within the area of 395.939
hectares which was excluded from the Panchmarhi
Wildlife Sanctuary.
2. That, it is respectfully submitted that in respect of Plot
No.14/3 and 14/4 a report was sought from Sub-Divisional
Officer, Revenue, Pipariya whereby it was reported that Plot
No.14/3 and 14/4 are recorded in name of State of M.P. in
Sheet No.20 of Nazul Maintenance Khasra No.2023-24,
said land of Plot No.14/3 and 14/4 is vacant on the
spot, there is no kind of construction over there, said
plots are situated under urban area of Panchmarhi.
Moreover, the permission for construction/re-
construction in the Cantonment Board, Panchmarhi
lies under the jurisdiction of Chief Executive Officer,
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 735
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
Cantonment Board, Panchmarhi and the permission
for construction/re-construction in the Special Area
Development Authority (SADA), Panchmarhi lies with
the jurisdiction of Chief Executive Officer, Special
Area Development Authority (SADA), Pachmarhi, In
respect of above, no permission for construction/re-
construction was issued by the Tehsildar, Pipariya.
8. That, on 03.01.2014, the Hon’ble High Court of M.P. at
Jabalpur passed an order in W.P. No.8098/2018 in petition
filed by Kripa Tori and others challenging the order dated
15.03.2011 of the Board of Revenue. The Hon’ble High
Court set aside the order dated 15.03.2011 and thereby
restored the previous order dated 22.07.1995 whereby the
order of the Nazul Adhikari had been affirmed.
A true copy of the order dated 03.01.2014 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in Writ Petition
No.8098/2011 is being marked and filed herewith as
Annexure A-9.
It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid order
dated 03.01.2014 of the Hon’ble High Court is in respect
of Plot No.14/1 and 14/2 whereas the applicant herein is
claiming relief in respect of Plot No.14/3 and 14/4 which
were purchased by Ashutosh S/o Shriram Shewalkar and
M/s Shewalkar Developers Pvt. Ltd. on 13.09.1991. The
said Plot No.14/3 and 14/4 at present are recorded in the
name of State of M.P. as Nazul Land. The State of Madhya
being aggrieved with the order dated 03.01.2014 has
filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble
High Court which is pending adjudication as Writ Appeal
No.2100/2019.
9. That, it is submitted here that the said proceedings
before the Hon’ble High Court pertains to Kripa Tori
&Ors. and the present intervenor M/s Shewalkar
Developers was not a party before any of the Revenue
Courts or the High Courts.
10. That, as per notification dated 19.08.2017, the
area under the entire Pachmarhi region admeasuring
736 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
1532.521 hectares has been declared as “Eco-sensitive
Zone” and the Plot No.14/3 and 14/4 fall within the
notified boundaries of said notification.
11. That, in view of notification dated 09.08.2017 “no
new resort can be constructed and only repairs etc. can
be done”. Moreover, the Hon’ble High Courtvide interim
order dated 01.11.2002 in W.P. No.5937/2002 stayed the
construction by making following observation:-
“Subject to hearing other side, further construction in and
around Pachmarhi Hill Resort is stayed till further order”.
The aforesaid clarification about stay order being
applicable only to new construction has been reiterated
by the Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 22.01.2004
in following words:-
“By further order dated 13.07.2004, the interim order was
clarified that the order of stay will not come in the way
of repairing of roads by the State or carrying out repairs
to existing building by respective provided, however, that
repairs work of any building can be undertaken only after
taking due permission from the concerned authority.””
(emphasis supplied)
10. Shri D.S. Naidu, learned senior counsel representing the applicant
drew the Court’s attention to the order dated 15th December, 2000
passed by the Department Officer(SDO), Pipariya on the application
preferred by the applicant seeking mutation based on a registered sale
deed dated 13th September, 1991 executed by the land owner Dennis
Torry in favour of the applicant. The SDO accepted the said application
taking note of the fact that Plot No.14 admeasuring 3,23,365 sq.
ft. was entered in the name of Dennis Torry who sought and was
granted permission to sell the plot in question, by the Government
of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 1st May, 1991. Thereafter, by
a registered sale deed dated 13th September, 1991, Dennis Torry
had sold the subject plots of land to Ashutosh Shewalkar on behalf
of the applicant company. Consequently, the SDO directed that the
land sold by Dennis Torry should be mutated in the name of M/s
Shewalkar Developers Ltd. through Ashutosh Shewalkar, resident
of Nagpur. There is no dispute that the aforesaid order passed by
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 737
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
the jurisdictional Revenue Officer in favour of the applicant has not
been questioned in any Court of law.
11. Shri Naidu also drew the Court’s attention to the report of the CEC
dated 16th June, 2020, as per which the permission to construct
has been denied to the applicant on the ground that the State of
Madhya Pradesh had filed an affidavit stating that the land falls in the
Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary and that the same had been purchased
in violation of the provisions of the Wild Life(Protection) Act, 1972.
12. Shri Naidu contended that this objection raised by the State with
reference to the Eco Sensitive Zone(hereinafter being referred to
as ‘ESZ’) notification dated 9th August, 2017 is totally against the
material available on record. He drew the Court’s attention to the
site map dated 26th December, 2023(Annexure A-1 annexed with the
compliance affidavit dated 12th February, 2024 filed by the respondent-
State of Madhya Pradesh) to contend that as a matter of fact, the
land owned by the applicant is located right on the periphery of the
Nazul land, at a distance of about 10 kms. from the forest area and
therefore, the same is well beyond the ESZ area.
13. Shri Naidu further submitted that in view of the categoric assertion
made in the compliance affidavit dated 12th February, 2024, filed on
behalf of the State, it is clear that the plots in question are located in
the urban area of Pachmarhi and thus, there is no question of these
plots being covered either under the wildlife sanctuary or the ESZ
area. He thus urged that the applicant deserves the relief sought for.
14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have
opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Naidu. Learned counsel
for the State of Madhya Pradesh urged that the plots in question
are subject matter of litigation in the writ appeal pending before the
Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and thus, the
applicant should await the outcome of the aforesaid writ appeal
before seeking permission to construct the health/eco-resort on the
land in question.
15. His further contention was that the plots in question are recorded in
the name of the State of Madhya Pradesh and hence, the applicant
cannot claim any right thereupon.
16. Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf
of the CEC submitted that in view of the ESZ notification dated 9th
738 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
August, 2017, permission to raise a new construction on the land in
question cannot be granted and whatever permissions are sought
for, have to be routed through the CEC.
17. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India adopted the
submissions advanced by the standing counsel for the State and
learned Amicus Curiae.
18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at bar and have gone through the material placed on record.
19. It is not in dispute that the applicant herein was never impleaded
in any of the proceedings before the Revenue Courts or the High
Court as has been emphatically stated in Para-9 of the compliance
affidavit dated 12th February, 2024. It is thus, clear that irrespective
of the fact that the order passed by the District Collector dated 9th
August, 2004, purportedly covers entire area of the Plot No. 14 and
the transactions done in favour of and by Dennis Torry, the sale deed
executed in favour of the applicant and the mutation made in its name
had never been questioned in any Court of law. Neither the Revenue
Department nor the State Government authorities took the trouble
of impleading the applicant as party in any of the abovementioned
litigations. The title acquired by the applicant over the subject plots
not having been challenged, attainted finality and thus the State
cannot claim a right thereupon simply because at some point of
time, the plots came to be recorded as Nazul lands in the revenue
records. The categoric stand in the compliance affidavit filed by the
State(reproduced supra) fortifies the claim of the applicant that these
plots are falling under the urban area.
20. In this background, the applicant is justified in claiming that its
proprietary rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution
of India cannot be infringed merely on account of the pending writ
appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
21. Resultantly, we are of the firm opinion that the permission sought
by the applicant for raising construction of health/eco-resort cannot
be opposed only on account of pendency of the writ appeal before
the Madhya Pradesh High Court. However, it can be said without a
cavil of doubt that activities, if any, on the Plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4
purchased by the applicant from Dennis Torry would have to be
carried out strictly in accordance with the ESZ notification dated 9th
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 739
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
August, 2017, issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change. Nonetheless, the applicant would be at liberty
to satisfy the authorities that the plots in question are beyond the
Eco-Sensitive Zone.
22. Furthermore, since the writ appeal pending before the Madhya
Pradesh High Court arises out of the orders passed in relation to the
title rights of Dennis Torry, from whom the applicant purchased the
plots in question, the activities, if any, undertaken by the applicant
on the said plot of land would also remain subject to the outcome
of the said writ appeal.
23. We, therefore, direct that the application filed by the applicant for
raising construction on plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4 shall be decided
objectively by the CEC/Competent Authority of the local body
keeping in view the location of the land with reference to the notified
boundaries of the ESZ.
24. While deciding the application filed by the applicant, the authorities
shall also bear in mind the fact that it is the pertinent case presented
before this Court that a large number of resorts of Madhya Pradesh
Tourism Development Corporation and Special Area Development
Authority(SADA) are existing on areas abutting the land owned by
the applicant.
25. The application/s shall be decided within a period of two months
from today. Needless to say, that in the event of any adverse orders
being passed, the applicant shall be at liberty to challenge the same
as per law.
26. The applications are disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Result of the case:
Applications disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Environment"Sign in to search