Supreme Court Directs Eviction of Encroachers and Restoration of Forest Lands in Tamil Nadu's Agasthyamalai Landscape — CEC Reports Widespread Illegal Occupation by Government Employees and Slow Implementation of Court Orders. The Court emphasized the need for time-bound eviction, disciplinary action against government encroachers, and monthly review by the Chief Secretary to ensure compliance with forest and wildlife laws.

  • 16
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court was hearing civil appeals concerning two issues: preservation of Reserve Forests, Wildlife Sanctuaries, and Tiger Reserves in Tamil Nadu, and the rehabilitation claims of displaced tea estate workers from the Bombay Burma Trading Corporation Limited (BBTCL) estate in Singampatti, Tamil Nadu, after it was declared a Reserved Forest, Wildlife Sanctuary, and Tiger Reserve under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. On 24th March 2025, the Court directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to survey the entire Agasthyamalai landscape, including Periyar Tiger Reserve, Srivilliputhur Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary, Meghamalai and Thirunelveli Wildlife Sanctuaries, and to report instances of non-forestry activities. The CEC submitted an Interim Report on 10th July 2025, revealing that the Agasthyamalai Ecological Landscape covers 3,500.36 sq km across Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The CEC found that in Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve (SMTR), around 4,595 individuals encroached upon 5,071.27 hectares of Reserved Forest land, with only 1.8% reclaimed. Alarmingly, 118 encroachers were serving or retired government employees. Despite Madras High Court directions, no FIRs or arrests had been made. In Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary, 427.40 hectares were encroached, with law and order issues hindering eviction. The CEC recommended a time-bound eviction plan, constitution of a task force, disciplinary action against government encroachers, and a moratorium on welfare schemes in encroached areas. The CEC's second report on 16th January 2026 noted continued non-compliance, with incomplete records and slow implementation. In Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, 99 families encroached on 10.16 hectares, and despite multiple offers of alternative land, encroachers refused to vacate. The Court considered the reports and issued directions for enforcement.

Headnote

A) Environmental Law - Forest Conservation - Encroachment Eviction - Forest Conservation Act, 1980; Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - The Supreme Court, upon considering CEC reports, noted widespread encroachments in Reserved Forests, Wildlife Sanctuaries, and Tiger Reserves in Tamil Nadu, including by government employees. The Court directed time-bound eviction, constitution of task forces, and monthly review by Chief Secretary to ensure restoration of forest lands (Paras 3-20).

B) Wildlife Protection - Tiger Reserve Management - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - The Court observed that despite specific directions, encroachers in Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve continue to receive government amenities and welfare schemes, incentivizing illegal occupation. A blanket moratorium on such facilities in encroached areas was recommended (Paras 5-11).

C) Service Law - Government Servants' Conduct - Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973 - The CEC identified 118 serving or retired government employees as encroachers. The Court directed disciplinary and legal action against them under Rule 3 of the said Rules (Para 8, 11(e)).

D) Rehabilitation - Displaced Workers - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - The appeals also involve claims of displaced tea estate workers seeking rehabilitation after eviction from Bombay Burma Trading Corporation Limited estate declared as Reserved Forest and Tiger Reserve. The Court noted that encroachers refused alternative land offers and demanded free houses (Paras 2, 14-15).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the State of Tamil Nadu has effectively implemented court directions for removal of encroachments and restoration of forest lands in the Agasthyamalai landscape, and what measures are necessary to ensure compliance.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Court, after considering CEC reports, directed time-bound eviction of encroachers, constitution of task forces, disciplinary action against government encroachers, moratorium on welfare schemes in encroached areas, and monthly review by Chief Secretary. Further hearing was adjourned.

Law Points

  • Forest Conservation Act
  • 1980
  • Wild Life (Protection) Act
  • 1972
  • Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules
  • 1973
  • Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act
  • 1955
  • Forest Rights Act
  • 2006
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (SC) (05) 78

Civil Appeal No(s). 6395-6397 of 2025

2026-05-29

VIKRAM NATH J. , SANDEEP MEHTA J.

2026 INSC 605

Shri K. Parmeshwar, learned Amicus Curiae, and Shri Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General appearing for State of Tamil Nadu.

A. John Kennedy and Others

State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeals concerning preservation of Reserve Forests, Wildlife Sanctuaries, and Tiger Reserves in Tamil Nadu, and rehabilitation claims of displaced tea estate workers.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought rehabilitation after eviction from BBTCL estate; Court also sought compliance with forest and wildlife laws.

Filing Reason

Displacement of tea estate workers and widespread encroachments in protected forest areas.

Previous Decisions

Madras High Court order dated 17th March 2022 directing formation of special task force for forest eviction; order dated 18th August 2025 in W.A. No. 1435 of 2024 regarding lease rent payable by BBTCL.

Issues

Whether the State of Tamil Nadu has effectively implemented court directions for removal of encroachments and restoration of forest lands in the Agasthyamalai landscape. What measures are necessary to ensure compliance with forest and wildlife laws.

Submissions/Arguments

CEC reports highlighted widespread encroachments, slow implementation, and involvement of government employees. State authorities failed to take decisive action despite court orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court emphasized that forest and wildlife laws must be strictly enforced to protect ecological integrity. Encroachments, especially by government employees, cannot be tolerated. Rehabilitation offers must be reasonable but cannot justify continued illegal occupation.

Judgment Excerpts

The CEC noted that these encroachments are old, many involving permanent cultivation of crops such as silk cotton, cardamom, and beans, and that in spite of clear orders of the Madras High Court to remove the encroachments, no significant progress has been made so far. Alarmingly, a total of 118 individuals listed as encroachers have been identified as serving or retired government employees, including personnel from the Army, Police, CRPF, Forest Department, Revenue Department, Electricity Board, Anganwadi, School Education, Panchayats, Survey Department and other services.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court issued interim directions on 24th March 2025 for CEC survey. CEC submitted Interim Report on 10th July 2025 and Second Report on 16th January 2026. The Court considered these reports and issued further directions.

Acts & Sections

  • Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: Not mentioned
  • Forest Conservation Act, 1980: Not mentioned
  • Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973: Rule 3
  • Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955: Not mentioned
  • Forest Rights Act, 2006: Not mentioned
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Directs Eviction of Encroachers and Restoration of Forest Lands in Tamil Nadu's Agasthyamalai Landscape — CEC Reports Widespread Illegal Occupation by Government Employees and Slow Implementation of Court Orders. The Court emphasized ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Assessee's Appeal in Central Excise Case: Cutting and Grooving of Aluminum Composite Panels Does Not Amount to Manufacture. Process of cutting, grooving, and routing ACPs for facade cladding does not bring into existence a new pr...