T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the applicant's request for permission to construct cannot be refused solely because of the pendency of a writ appeal; the CEC/Competent Authority of the local body must decide the application objectively in light of the ESZ notification and the notified boundaries, allowing the applicant...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: M/s Shewalkar Developers Limited; Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) No. 202 of 1995 Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Interlocutory Applications (i.a. Nos. 2930 of 2010, 3963 of 2017, 160714 of 2019, 77320 of 2023 and 79064 of 2023) Before the Supreme Court
Outcome
Applications disposed of.
Legal Topics
Eco Sensitive Zone, Wildlife Sanctuary, Forest Land, Permission to Construct (health/eco Resort), Proprietary Rights Under Article 300 a
Environment Wildlife Law Property Law Administrative Law Eco Sensitive Zone Wildlife Sanctuary Forest Land Permission to Construct (health/eco Resort) +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/s Shewalkar Developers Limited

Applicant

Union of India & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) No. 202 of 1995 Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Interlocutory Applications (i.a. Nos. 2930 of 2010, 3963 of 2017, 160714 of 2019, 77320 of 2023 and 79064 of 2023) Before the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Plot Nos.14/3 and 14/4 fall within the Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary or within the Eco-Sensitive Zone notified on 09.08.2017
  2. 2 Whether pendency of writ appeal(s) concerning title prevents grant of permission to construct on the plots
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's proprietary rights under Article 300A are infringed by recording of the plots as Nazul land or by inaction of authorities

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the applicant's request for permission to construct cannot be refused solely because of the pendency of a writ appeal; the CEC/Competent Authority of the local body must decide the application objectively in light of the ESZ notification and the notified boundaries, allowing the applicant to satisfy authorities that the plots lie outside the ESZ, while noting that any activities remain subject to ESZ conditions and the eventual outcome of the pending writ appeal concerning title.

Court Disposition

Applications disposed of.

Orders

  • Directed the CEC/Competent Authority of the local body to decide the application for construction on Plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4 objectively keeping in view the notified boundaries of the ESZ
  • Applicant to be at liberty to satisfy authorities that the plots are beyond the Eco-Sensitive Zone