Supreme Court Directs Consideration of Resort Construction in Pachmarhi: Shewalkar Developers vs. Union of India (16 May 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 16 May 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 426

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Sandeep Mehta, J.

Can a property owner be denied the right to develop their land due to a pending legal dispute about the previous owner’s title, especially when the land is located in a region with environmental restrictions? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a proposed health/eco-resort in Pachmarhi, Madhya Pradesh. The Court considered the interplay between property rights, environmental regulations, and ongoing litigation.

The core issue was whether M/s Shewalkar Developers Ltd. could be denied permission to construct a resort on land they legally purchased, simply because of a pending writ appeal concerning the land’s previous owner and the applicability of an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) notification. The Court had to balance the applicant’s right to use their property with environmental concerns and the ongoing legal dispute.

Case Background

M/s Shewalkar Developers Ltd. sought permission to build a health/eco-resort on land in Pachmarhi, Madhya Pradesh, specifically Plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4. The applicant purchased these plots in 1991. The land was part of a larger area that had been subject to various notifications and litigations regarding its inclusion in or exclusion from the Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary.

Initially, the applicant approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which directed them to the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). The CEC did not approve the construction, citing the State Government’s claim that the land was within the sanctuary and purchased illegally. This led to the applicant filing an application before the Supreme Court.

The State Government had previously argued that the land was part of the Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary, making commercial activity impermissible without court approval. However, the situation evolved over time with various orders and reports from different authorities.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The case also involved a parallel litigation regarding land transactions by Dennis Torry, the previous owner of the plots. The District Collector, Hoshangabad, had initiated revisions against mutation orders in favor of those who purchased land from Torry, holding that Torry’s transfer of land was illegal. This order was challenged and eventually set aside by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The State has filed a writ appeal against the High Court’s order, which is currently pending. The Supreme Court noted that the applicant, M/s Shewalkar Developers Ltd., was not a party in these proceedings.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following:

• Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: Section 18(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was used to notify the Pachmarhi Sanctuary. Section 21 was used to invite claims from affected persons. The Act is relevant to determine the legality of land transactions within and around wildlife sanctuaries.
• Article 300A of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law. The applicant argued that their proprietary rights were being infringed upon without proper legal basis.
• Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) Notification dated 9th August, 2017: This notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, imposes restrictions on construction and other activities in the ESZ.

The Court considered how these legal provisions interact with each other, particularly in the context of land ownership, environmental protection, and ongoing litigation.

Arguments

Applicant’s Arguments (M/s Shewalkar Developers Ltd.):

• The applicant argued that they had validly purchased the land in 1991 from Dennis Torry, who had obtained permission to sell from the Government of Madhya Pradesh.
• They contended that the mutation of the land in their name was never challenged in any court of law, and thus, they have a clear title to the land.
• The applicant emphasized that the land is located in the urban area of Pachmarhi, as per the State’s compliance affidavit, and is not within the Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary or the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ).
• They argued that their proprietary rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India are being infringed upon due to the pending writ appeal, in which they are not a party.
• The applicant highlighted that many resorts of Madhya Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation and Special Area Development Authority (SADA) exist in areas abutting their land.

State of Madhya Pradesh’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the plots in question are the subject matter of a pending writ appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, and the applicant should await its outcome before seeking construction permission.
• The State contended that the plots are recorded in the name of the State of Madhya Pradesh, and hence, the applicant cannot claim any right over them.
• The State initially claimed that the land falls within the Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary, but later, in its compliance affidavit, stated that the land is in the urban area of Pachmarhi.

Amicus Curiae’s Arguments (representing the CEC):

• The Amicus Curiae submitted that due to the ESZ notification dated 9th August, 2017, new constructions cannot be permitted on the land in question.
• They argued that any permissions sought must be routed through the CEC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame the issues in a separate section. However, the core issues that the Court addressed were:

1. Whether the pendency of a writ appeal regarding the title of the previous owner of the land could be a valid reason to deny construction permission to the applicant, who is not a party to that litigation.
2. Whether the applicant’s land falls within the Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary or the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ), and if so, what are the implications for construction.
3. Whether the applicant’s proprietary rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India are being infringed upon.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: The Court considered the provisions of the Act, specifically Section 18(1) regarding the notification of the Pachmarhi Sanctuary and Section 21 regarding inviting claims from affected persons. The Court examined how these provisions apply to the land in question and the legality of land transactions within and around the sanctuary.
• Article 300A of the Constitution of India: The Court considered Article 300A, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law. The Court emphasized that the applicant’s proprietary rights cannot be infringed upon without proper legal basis.
• Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) Notification dated 9th August, 2017: The Court considered the restrictions imposed by the ESZ notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The Court directed the authorities to take this notification into account while deciding the construction application.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court used the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to understand the background of the Pachmarhi Sanctuary and the procedures followed.
• The Court upheld the Article 300A of the Constitution of India to protect the applicant’s property rights, stating that they cannot be infringed upon without proper legal basis.
• The Court directed the authorities to consider the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) Notification dated 9th August, 2017 while deciding the construction application.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Protection of Property Rights: The Court emphasized the importance of protecting the applicant’s property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution. The fact that the applicant’s title had never been challenged and that they were not a party to the pending writ appeal weighed heavily in the Court’s decision.
• State’s Contradictory Stance: The Court noted the State’s contradictory stance on whether the land was within the sanctuary or not. The compliance affidavit stating that the land is in the urban area of Pachmarhi played a significant role in the Court’s reasoning.
• Balance of Development and Environmental Concerns: The Court acknowledged the importance of the ESZ notification and directed the authorities to consider it while deciding the construction application. However, it also ensured that the applicant’s rights were not completely curtailed due to environmental concerns.

Fact:Law

The Court’s reasoning was a mix of factual analysis (such as the location of the land and the State’s contradictory stance) and legal principles (such as the protection of property rights and the application of environmental regulations).

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the pending writ appeal could be a valid reason to deny permission. However, it rejected this interpretation because the applicant was not a party to that litigation and their title had not been challenged. The Court also considered the environmental concerns raised by the ESZ notification but balanced them with the applicant’s property rights.

The Court decided that the applicant’s construction application should be decided objectively by the CEC/Competent Authority, keeping in view the location of the land with reference to the notified boundaries of the ESZ. The Court also directed the authorities to consider the fact that many resorts of Madhya Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation and Special Area Development Authority (SADA) exist in areas abutting the applicant’s land.

The decision was based on the following reasons:

• The applicant’s title to the land was valid and had never been challenged.
• The applicant was not a party to the pending writ appeal, and thus, that litigation should not affect their rights.
• The State’s contradictory stance on the location of the land weakened its objection.
• The Court had to balance the applicant’s property rights with the environmental concerns raised by the ESZ notification.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“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 Nazu l lands in the revenue records.”

“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.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• Protection of Property Rights: The judgment reinforces the protection of property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution, emphasizing that a person’s title cannot be easily disregarded due to pending litigations where they are not a party.
• Importance of Clear State Stance: The State’s contradictory stance on the location of the land was a significant factor in the Court’s decision. This highlights the importance of clear and consistent positions by government authorities in legal proceedings.
• Balancing Development and Environment: The judgment demonstrates the Court’s approach to balancing development with environmental concerns. While acknowledging the ESZ notification, the Court ensured that it did not unduly restrict the applicant’s property rights.
• Objective Decision-Making: The Court directed the authorities to make an objective decision based on the location of the land with reference to the ESZ boundaries and also considering the existence of other resorts in the vicinity.

The judgment may have implications for future cases involving land disputes in areas with environmental restrictions. It emphasizes the need for a balanced approach that protects property rights while also considering environmental concerns. The Court’s emphasis on the need for clear and consistent positions by government authorities can also have a positive impact on future legal proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• 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.
• The authorities shall also bear in mind the fact 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.
• The application shall be decided within a period of two months from the date of the judgment.
• In the event of any adverse orders being passed, the applicant shall be at liberty to challenge the same as per law.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of any specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a person’s property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution cannot be infringed upon merely due to a pending litigation where they are not a party. The Court also emphasized the need for a balanced approach that considers both development and environmental concerns. This case does not overrule any previous position of law but rather clarifies the application of existing legal principles in a specific context.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court directed the authorities to reconsider the construction application filed by M/s Shewalkar Developers Ltd., emphasizing that the applicant’s property rights cannot be disregarded due to a pending litigation where they are not a party. The Court also directed the authorities to consider the location of the land with respect to the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) and the fact that other resorts exist in the vicinity. The Court’s decision highlights the importance of balancing property rights with environmental concerns and ensuring that government authorities maintain clear and consistent positions in legal proceedings.

Category

• Environmental Law
  • Eco-Sensitive Zone
  • Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
• Land Law
  • Property Rights
  • Land Acquisition
• Constitutional Law
  • Article 300A