The Supreme Court reaffirmed its 2020 ruling requiring the evacuation of private properties within the Nilgiris elephant corridor to protect wildlife habitats. The Court stressed the importance of these migratory paths while allowing the Madras High Court to review the inquiry committee’s scope. It emphasized the need for timely resolution of landowner objections and biodiversity preservation.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday reaffirmed its 2020 verdict mandating the vacation of private properties and resorts located within the elephant corridor in the Nilgiris, emphasizing the need to safeguard wildlife habitats. The Court ruled that the findings of its 2020 decision had “attained finality,” underscoring the importance of protecting these vital migratory paths for elephants.
However, a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar allowed the Madras High Court to examine whether the inquiry committee, appointed to address objections on land demarcation and acquisition, had exceeded its scope.
The inquiry committee was established to assess grievances of private landowners concerning the Nilgiris district collector’s decision to earmark land for the elephant corridor, as per the Tamil Nadu government’s 2010 notification. The committee included Justice K Venkatraman, a former Madras High Court judge, Ajay Desai, a consultant to World Wide Fund for Nature-India, and Praveen Bhargava, trustee of Wildlife First and former member of the National Board for Wildlife.
The bench noted submissions from senior advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, representing the Tamil Nadu government, who urged the court to set a time frame for adjudication by the High Court to prevent delays. “It will be open for parties to seek early disposal of the case in the high court,” Chief Justice Khanna stated.
The Supreme Court’s October 14, 2020 judgment, which disposed of 35 petitions, including those filed by actor Mithun Chakraborty and the Hospitality Association of Mudumalai, upheld the Madras High Court’s 2011 directive. The directive required resort owners and private landowners to vacate lands falling within the corridor and hand them over to authorities.
The Court stressed that the constitutional provisions mandate states to protect and improve the environment while safeguarding forests and wildlife. It also took note of factual objections regarding the acreage of the corridor, as identified in the government’s 2010 notification.
The Madras High Court had validated the Tamil Nadu government’s 2010 notification and highlighted the varied activities within the corridor, including residential constructions, encroachments on government land, and cultivation. The High Court had directed aggrieved landowners to submit their objections to the inquiry committee, ensuring a fair assessment of grievances.
The Supreme Court reiterated that protecting wildlife corridors is integral to preserving biodiversity and mitigating human-animal conflict. It urged all parties to respect the directives, ensuring swift adjudication of remaining disputes.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE