In a crucial legal battle between Kripa Tori and the State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant verdict on matters concerning land ownership and construction rights. The case delves into the complexities of the Wildlife Protection Act and the rights of individuals in disputed areas. Let’s explore the key aspects of this landmark judgment.
Facts
- The High Court issued an interim order in 2004 staying the exclusion of Cantonment and Civil/Nazul area of Pachmarhi Town from the Pachmarhi Sanctuary.
- State Government took a stand that the land in question falls within the limits of the Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary.
- The Collector invited claims from affected persons under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
- After inviting claims, orders were passed in 2000 excluding Civil/Nazul area of Pachmarhi Town from the Sanctuary.
- An application was filed in 2000 seeking mutation based on a registered sale deed.
- The applicant was directed to provide necessary permissions for acquiring the land.
- A compliance affidavit was filed by the State Government in 2023 regarding the identification of the land owned by the applicant.
- The State Government objected to the permission sought by the applicant for construction activities on the land.
- Various legal disputes arose regarding the ownership and mutations of the land in question.
- The CEC submitted reports objecting to the permissions sought by the applicant for constructing a resort on the subject land.
- The State Government and the CEC were directed to file responses to the interlocutory applications filed by the applicant.
- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order dated 15.03.2011
- The previous order dated 22.07.1995 was restored
- The order of the Nazul Adhikari had been affirmed
- On 03.01.2014, the Hon’ble High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur passed an order in W.P. No.8098/2018
- The order dated 15.03.2011 of the Board of Revenue was challenged in the petition filed by Kripa Tori and others
Also Read: Supreme Court Overturns Land Acquisition: Dinesh and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Arguments
- The applicant’s permission to construct has been denied due to the land falling in the Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary and purchased in violation of the Wild Life(Protection) Act, 1972.
- The State of Madhya Pradesh argues that the plots are part of a writ appeal in the High Court and the applicant should await the outcome before seeking permission for construction.
- The State claims the plots are owned by Madhya Pradesh and the applicant cannot claim any rights to them.
- Permissions for new construction on the land in question cannot be granted due to an ESZ notification from 2017, and must be routed through the CEC.
- The objection raised by the State regarding the ESZ notification is disputed by the material on record, as shown in a site map.
- The land owned by the applicant is located on the periphery of Nazul land, far from the forest area, and thus, well beyond the ESZ area.
- The compliance affidavit from the State confirms that the plots in question are in the urban area of Pachmarhi and not covered by the wildlife sanctuary or ESZ.
- Learned counsel for the Union of India adopted the submissions made by the standing counsel for the State and the learned Amicus Curiae.
Also Read: Rajesh Kumar v. State of Telangana: Quashing of Conviction
Analysis
- Title acquired by the applicant over the subject plots not challenged and attained finality.
- State cannot claim right over the plots merely because they were recorded as Nazul lands in revenue records.
- Compliance affidavit by the State supports the applicant’s claim that the plots are in the urban area.
- Applicant not impleaded in any proceedings before Revenue Courts or High Court.
- No permission for construction/re-construction issued by Tehsildar, Pipariya for Plot No. 14.
- Order by District Collector in 2004 covering entire area of Plot No. 14 did not question sale deed or mutation in applicant’s name.
- The applicant’s proprietary rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India cannot be infringed solely due to the pending writ appeal.
- Construction of health/eco-resort by the applicant cannot be opposed solely based on the appeal’s pendency.
- Activities on the purchased plots must adhere to the ESZ notification of August 9, 2017, by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
- Applicant must show that the plots are outside the Eco-Sensitive Zone.
- Activities on the plots purchased from Dennis Torry remain subject to the outcome of the writ appeal concerning title rights.
- Existing resorts of Madhya Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation and SADA should be considered by authorities in the decision-making process.
Also Read: Pankaj Bansal vs. State of Delhi: Grounds of Arrest and Legal Rights
Decision
- No order as to costs.
- Applicant has the liberty to challenge adverse orders passed
- Applications disposed of as per terms mentioned
- Applications to be decided within two months
- Directing the CEC/Competent Authority to objectively decide on construction on plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4
Case Title: IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (2024 INSC 426)
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.-000202-000202 – 1995
