Case Note & Summary
The applicant, M/s Shewalkar Developers Limited, filed interlocutory applications seeking permission to construct a health/eco-resort on two plots (Plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4) in Pachmarhi, Madhya Pradesh. The applicant had purchased the land in 1991 and later sought mutation. In 2000, the Collector excluded the Civil/Nazul area of Pachmarhi Town from the Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary, which included the applicant's plots. However, in 2004, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a Public Interest Litigation (W.P. No. 5937 of 2002), stayed the Collector's exclusion order. The applicant then approached the High Court in 2006, which directed them to the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). The CEC did not accept the prayer, leading to the present applications before the Supreme Court. The State Government opposed the application, stating that the land falls within the sanctuary and no commercial activity is permissible without the Court's permission. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's interim stay on the exclusion order remains in force, and thus the land continues to be part of the sanctuary. The Court held that until the rights are finally settled and the stay is vacated, no construction can be permitted. The applications were dismissed as devoid of merit.
Headnote
A) Wildlife Law - Sanctuary Exclusion - Settlement of Rights - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Sections 18, 21 - The applicant sought permission to construct a resort on plots in Pachmarhi, claiming the land was excluded from the sanctuary by the Collector's order dated 20.06.2000. However, the High Court in a PIL stayed that exclusion order. The Supreme Court held that until the rights are finally settled and the stay is vacated, no commercial activity can be permitted without the Court's permission. (Paras 1-6) B) Wildlife Law - Interim Orders - Effect of Stay - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - The High Court's interim order dated 15.01.2004 stayed the Collector's exclusion of Civil/Nazul area from the sanctuary. The Supreme Court noted that this stay remains in force and thus the land continues to be part of the sanctuary for legal purposes. Consequently, the applicant cannot claim any right to construct without prior permission. (Paras 5-6) C) Wildlife Law - Commercial Activity - Prohibition - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - The CEC had directed that no commercial activity is permissible in the sanctuary without the Court's permission. The Supreme Court upheld this direction and dismissed the application, noting that the applicant had not obtained any such permission. (Paras 3, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant is entitled to permission to construct a health/eco-resort on land allegedly falling within Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary, given the pending proceedings and interim stay on exclusion of the area.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the applications as devoid of merit, holding that the High Court's interim stay on the exclusion order remains in force, and thus the land continues to be part of the sanctuary. No permission for construction can be granted until the rights are finally settled and the stay is vacated.
Law Points
- Wildlife Sanctuary
- Exclusion of Land
- Settlement of Rights
- Interim Stay
- Commercial Activity
- Permission of Court
