16 May 2024 Wild Life Protection >> Environmental Law  

A recent Supreme Court ruling has cleared the way for M/s Shewalkar Developers Ltd. to potentially build a health/eco-resort on two plots of land (14/3 & 14/4) in Pachmarhi, Madhya Pradesh. The decision comes after a long-standing dispute between the developer and the State government over the land's ownership and usage.

Background:

The crux of the dispute involved the purpose for which the land could be used. Shewalkar Developers Ltd., having acquired the plots in 1991, sought permission to construct a health resort. The State of Madhya Pradesh, however, argued that the land fell within the boundaries of the Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary and a newly designated Eco-sensitive Zone (ESZ). This classification, according to the State, restricted any new construction activity in the area.

Court Recognizes Developer's Right, but with Conditions:

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the developer's land title, established through a sale deed in 1991 and subsequent mutation, had never been challenged in court. The court also noted that a pending writ appeal by the State pertained to earlier transactions involving a different party (Dennis Torry, from whom the developer bought the land) and did not directly affect the developer's rights.

Critically, the court ruled that the developer's right to develop the land could not be restricted solely due to the pending appeal. However, the court placed a key condition: any construction on the land must strictly adhere to the regulations set forth in the ESZ notification.

Next Steps: CEC Approval and Appeal Outcome

The court directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) or the local body to objectively assess the developer's proposal. The committee, while considering the land's location within the ESZ, will also take into account the presence of existing resorts operated by the Madhya Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation and the Special Area Development Authority (SADA) in the vicinity. A final decision on the construction project will be made within two months, and the developer can challenge any rejection order in court.

One lingering uncertainty remains. The outcome of the ongoing writ appeal regarding Dennis Torry's land transactions might still impact the developer's rights.

This case highlights the complexities of land-use regulations in environmentally sensitive areas. While the court recognized the developer's ownership rights, it emphasized the importance of adhering to environmental safeguards. The final decision on the resort's construction will depend on the CEC's assessment and how the pending appeal is resolved.