Proprietary Rights Cannot Be Infringed Upon Mere Pendency Of Writ Appeal: SC Asks Authority To Decide Plea For Resort Construction Near Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary
|The Supreme Court directed the authorities to decide an application filed by Shewalkar Developers Limited for the construction of a health/eco-resort near Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary.
The Court said that the proprietary rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution cannot be infringed merely on account of a pending writ appeal.
The Bench directed that the authorities should ‘bear in mind’ the fact that a large number of resorts of Madhya Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation and Special Area Development Authority (SADA) existed on areas abutting the land owned by the applicant, M/s Shewalkar Developers Limited (Developers).
Justice B.R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “Resultantly, we are of the firm opinion that the permission sought by the applicant for raising construction of health/ecoresort 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 August, 2017, issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.”
Sr. Advocate D.S. Naidu represented the applicant.
The Developers filed interlocutory applications being aggrieved by the inaction of the competent authorities in deciding their application for the construction of a health/eco-resort on two plots of land situated within the Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary.
After the Developers approached the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), which was directed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, their plea was rejected despite the Developer’s argument that the land in question was not forest land and had been acquired under valid title deeds.
The State Government had previously taken a stand in its counter that the land in issue was within the limits of Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary and therefore, no commercial activity was permissible without the permission of the Court.
The original application filed by the Developers remained unresolved for 14 years. Key timeline in the case include:
- 1991: Purchase of the plots by Developers.
- 1996: State Government instructed to expedite settlement of rights in sanctuaries following a Supreme Court order.
- 2000: Collector of Hoshangabad excluded Pachmarhi Town’s Civil/Nazul area from the sanctuary.
- 2006: High Court allowed the developers to approach the CEC.
- 2013: Supreme Court excluded 395.939 hectares, including the developers' plots, from the sanctuary.
- 2017: ESZ notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
- 2020: CEC report objecting to the construction due to sanctuary status.
“There is no dispute that the aforesaid order passed by the jurisdictional Revenue Officer in favour of the applicant has not been questioned in any Court of law,” the Court remarked. Considering that the sale deed executed in favour of the Developers and the mutation made in its name had never been questioned in any Court, solidified their ownership.
“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” the Court held.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court disposed of the application.
Cause Title: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
Appearance:
Sr AAG Nalin Kohli; AAG Saurabh Mishra; ASG Aishwarya Bhati; AOR Gurmeet Singh Makker and Gaichangpou Gangmei; Sr. Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Dhruv Mehta, P. C Sen, Archana Pathak Dave, Shekhar Naphade, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Ravindra Kumar