T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 723, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 723 : 2024 INSC 426
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad 
v. 
Union of India & Ors.
IA No(S). 2930 of 2010, 3963 of 2017, 160714 of 2019, 77320 of 
2023 and 79064 of 2023 
In 
Writ Petition(Civil) No(S). 202 of 1995
16 May 2024
[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Interlocutory applications preferred by the applicant being aggrieved 
by the inaction of the respondents in deciding the application filed by 
the applicant seeking permission to construct a health/eco-resort on 
the subject land being Plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4, falling in Sheet 2 No. 
20, Civil Station, Pachmarhi, District Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh.
Headnotes
Environment – Wildlife Sanctuary – Forest Land – Permission 
to construct a health/eco-resort – Applicant had preferred an 
application to the Central Empowered Committee and sought 
permission to construct the health/eco-resort on plot nos. 
14/3 and 14/4 asserting that the said chunk of land was not a 
forest land – However, the prayer made by the applicant was 
not accepted whereupon, the applications under consideration 
came to be filed before the Supreme Court – It was contended 
by the State that the plots in question are subject matter of 
litigation in writ appeal pending before the High Court and 
applicant should wait the outcome of the aforesaid writ appeal:
Held: The issue raised by the State of Madhya Pradesh is with 
respect to the identification of the land owned by the applicant 
contending that the
same forms a part of the Pachmarhi Wildlife 
Sanctuary – There have been various rounds of litigation and it is 
not in dispute that applicant herein was never impleaded in any of 
the proceedings before the Revenue Courts or the High Court – An 
order passed by the District Collector dated 09.08.2004, purportedly 
covers entire area of the Plot No. 14 and the transactions done 
in favour of and by one D, the sale deed executed in favour of
724
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the applicant and the mutation made in its name had never been 
questioned in any Court of law – Neither the Revenue Department 
nor the State Government authorities took the trouble of impleading 
the applicant as party in any of the litigations – 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 Nazul lands in the revenue records – The categoric stand in 
the compliance affidavit filed by the State fortifies the claim of the 
applicant that these plots are falling under the urban area – In this 
background, the appellant is justified in claiming that its proprietary 
rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution cannot 
be infringed merely on account of the pending writ appeal before 
the High Court – Nonetheless, the applicant would satisfy the 
authorities that the plots in question are beyond the Eco-Sensitive 
Zone – Therefore, it is directed that 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. [Paras 8, 19, 20, 21, 23]
List of Acts
Wild Life(Protection) Act, 1972; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Environment; Wildlife Sanctuary; Forest Land; Permission to 
construct a health/eco-resort; Eco-Sensitive Zone; Proprietary 
rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: IA Nos. 2930 of 2010, 3963 of 
2017, 160714 of 2019, 77320 of 2023 and 79064 of 2023
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
Appearances for Parties
K. Parameshwar, A.C., M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Kanti, Ms. Aarti Gupta, 
Chinmay Kalgaonkar, Ms. Musharraf Chawdhary, M/s. Lawyer S
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
725
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
Knit & Co, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, M/s. PLR Chambers and Co., 
Syed Mehdi Imam, T. Harish Kumar, M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co., Advs. 
for the Petitioner.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., K.M. Natraj, A.S.G., Nalin Kohli, Sr. 
A.A.G, Saurabh Mishra, Shiv Mangal Sharma, Vaibhav Srivastava, 
A.A.Gs., D.S. Naidu, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Ms. Archana Pathak 
Dave, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Ravindra Kumar, Sr Advs., Gurmeet 
Singh Makker, Ms. Archana Pathank Dave, Ms. Suhashini Sen, S. S. 
Rebello, Shyam Gopal, Raghav Sharma, Sughosh Subramanyam, Ms. 
Ruchi Kohli, Shuvodeep Roy, Saurabh Tripathi, Ms. Nimisha Menon, 
Ms. Shruti Agrawal, Sumit Kumar, Neeraj Shekhar, Animesh Kumar, 
Amrendra Singh, Ram Bachan Choudhary, Rajeev Nandkishore R. 
Kumar, Kartik Kumar, Mrs. Kshama Sharma, Mrs. Priya Pramar, 
Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Niranjan Swami, Raj Kishor Choudhary, 
Gaichangpou Gangmei, V. Balachandran, S. C. Birla, P. R. Ramasesh, 
Mrs. Bina Gupta, M/s. Parekh & Co., M/s. K J John and Co, H. S. 
Parihar, Ms. Baby Krishnan, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Shibashish Misra, 
Umesh Bhagwat, Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, E. C. Agrawala, Kuldip 
Singh, Ranjan Mukherjee, K. V. Vijayakumar, P. N. Gupta, Sarad 
Kumar Singhania, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, 
Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Ashok Mathur, Rajat Joseph, Gopal 
Prasad, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Raj Kumar Mehta, M/s. M. V. Kini & 
Associates, T. Mahipal, Ms. S. Janani, M/s. Arputham Aruna and Co,
Surya Kant, E. C. Vidya Sagar, Amit Anand Tiwari, Ms. Adviteeya, 
Rakesh K. Sharma, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Manoranjan Paikaray, 
P. K. Tripathy, Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, 
P. Parmeswaran, Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Rajeev 
Singh, Prashant Kumar, Ramesh Babu M. R., Vikrant Singh Bais, 
Shiva Pujan Singh, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Kamal Mohan Gupta, 
Sudarsh Menon, Rajesh, M/s. Corporate Law Group, Lakshmi Raman 
Singh, Rajesh Singh, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Gunmaya S Mann, M. C. 
Dhingra, Ejaz Maqbool, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, 
Abhishek Chaudhary, Himanshu Shekhar, Parth Shekhar, Ms. Ambali 
Vedasen, Ms. Rachna Ranjan, Shubham Singh, Vijay Singh, Partap 
Ranjan, Ugranath Kumar, Mahabir Singh, Vivek Kumar, Vishal Prasad, 
Surajit Paul, Rajat Sinha Roy, Sameer Mehndiratta, Gyanesh Kumar 
Maheshwari, Ms. Monica Haseja, Bacha Babu Mistry, Md Sontu 
Mia, Ms. Moni Tomar, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Bhavanishankar V. 
Gadnis, A. Venayagam Balan, Vishwanath Gadnis, Gaurav Pal, C.
726
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
L. Sahu, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Ms. Surabhi Singh, S. R. Setia, 
Ms. Charu Mathur, Rajiv Mehta, T. V. George, Krishnanand Pandeya, 
Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Sudhir Kulshreshtha, E. M. S. Anam, Ms. 
K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, T. N. Singh, Punit Dutt Tyagi, Rathin Das, 
Irshad Ahmad, G. Prakash, Ms. Binu Tamta, B V Deepak, Gopal 
Singh, Sudhir Kumar Gupta, A. N. Arora, Ms. Malini Poduval, Ms. 
C. K. Sucharita, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Mohd. 
Irshad Hanif, Amar Kumar Raizada, Mrs. Sushma, P. V. Yogeswaran, 
Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Ms. A. Sumathi, Jai Prakash Pandey, Ajit 
Pudussery, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, Pankaj 
Kumar Singh, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Brij Pal, Vivek Sharma, V.S. 
Dubey, K. L. Janjani, Naresh K. Sharma, Tarun Johri, Radha Shyam 
Jena, Ram Swarup Sharma, Ms. Sushma Suri, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, 
Ms. Divya Roy, M. Yogesh Kanna, Nishanth Patil, M/s. Venkat Palwai 
Law Associates, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vivek Jain, Parth Awasthi, 
Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, 
Tarun Gupta, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Siddhant 
Yadav, Chirag M. Shroff, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, 
Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya 
Krishna, Mayank Aggarwal, Sanjeev Kumar, Naik H.K., Manoj Kumar 
Sharma, Mrs. Sarbani Kar, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, 
Somesh Chandra Jha, Siddhartha Jha, M/s. V. Maheshwari & Co., 
Ms. Parul Shukla,
P. S. Sudheer, Ramesh Thakur, Sunny Choudhary, 
Karan Bishnoi, Utkarsh Mishra, Vinod Sharma, Ms. Surbhi Mehta, 
Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Aastik Dhingra, Karan Mamgain, Anurag 
Tandon, Dr. Monika Gusain, P. K. Manohar, S. Gowthaman, A. Karthik, 
Siddharth Sharma, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Uday 
Prakash Yadav, Suhasini Sen, S S Rebello, Sughosh Subramanium, 
Naveen Kumar, James P. Thomas, Sunil Kumar Sharma, Ms. Swati 
Ghildiyal, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Krishna Ballabh Thakur, Tushar Kumar, 
Kaushlendra Kumar, Ms. Rashmi Kumari, Ms. Prity Kumari, Rajul 
Srivastava, Abhishek Prashad, Ramesh Allanki, Ms. Aruna Gupta, 
B. K. Pal, Ms. Shalini Kaul, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Ms. Anu K Joy, 
Alim Anvar, Nishit Agrawal, Romy Chacko, Robin V.s., Sachin Singh 
Dalal, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Ms. Tayade Pranali Gowardhan, Ms. 
Shireesh Tyagi, Aniket Singh, Shubhranshu Padhi, Ms. Deepanwita 
Priyanka, Raghvendra Kumar, Anand Kumar Dubey, Devvrat Singh, 
Dinesh Chandra Pandey, Dushyant Dahiya, Mrs. Jyoti Pandey, Mrs. 
Pragya Baghel, Sarvam Ritam Khare, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal,
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
727
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Anirudh Sanganeria, Chinmay Deshpande, Yash 
Prashant Sonavane, Gopal Balwant Sathe, Aravindh S., Ms. Ekta 
Muyal, Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, Atul Sharma, Renjith B. Marar, Ms. 
Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Rajkumar Pavothil, Arun Poomulli, Keshavraj 
Nair, Avinash Krishnakumar, Kaushik Choudhury, Ms. Mrinal Gopal 
Elker, Dhaval Mehrotra, Binay Kumar Das, Ms. Priyanka Das, Ms. 
Neha Das, Shivam Saksena, Vipin Kumar Saxena, Chandra Bhushan 
Prasad, Abhishek Atrey, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Vidyottma Jha, 
V. N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, M/s. D.S.K. Legal, Ms. 
Shibani Ghosh, Rishad A Chowdhury, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, 
Saurabh Rajpal, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Ms. Shalini Singh, Sandeep 
Kumar Jha, Milind Kumar, Mohit Paul, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, 
Mrs. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Neeraj Kumar 
Sharma, Harish Pandey, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Shashwat Parihar, 
Piyush Beriwal, M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, M. R. Shamshad, 
Amrish Kumar, Ms. Purnima Krishna, M.F. Philip, Karamveer Singh 
Yadav, T. R. B. Sivakumar, Sujit Kumar Mishra , Ms. Adarsh Nain, 
Guntur Pramod Kumar, Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, Ms. Astha Sharma, Ms. 
Lihzu Shiney Konyak, Karan Sharma, Ms. Sugandha Anand , Ms. 
Seita Vaidyalingam, Kumar Anurag Singh, Anando Mukherjee, Mrs. 
Tulika Mukherjee, Shwetank Singh, Ajay Marwah, Ravindra S. Garia, 
Shashank Singh, Madan Chandra Karnatkya, Mrs. Vidhya, Sudeep 
Kumar, Gaurav Kumar Bansal,
Vishnu Gupta, Ms. Nandita Bansal, 
Ms. Rani Mishra, Abhimanyu Tewari, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
1.	
These interlocutory applications have been preferred by the applicant 
M/s Shewalkar Developers Limited being aggrieved by the inaction 
of the respondents in deciding the application filed by the applicant 
seeking permission to construct a health/eco-resort on the subject 
land being Plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4, falling in Sheet No. 20, Civil 
Station, Pachmarhi, District Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh. The 
total area of these two plots is around 59,265 sq. ft. and 49,675 sq. 
ft., respectively. 
2.	
The applicant herein approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court 
by filing Writ Petition No. 14478 of 2006 seeking a direction to the
728
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
respondents to favourably consider the prayer of the applicant. 
Vide order dated 22nd November, 2006, the Division Bench of 
Madhya Pradesh High Court permitted the applicant to approach 
the Central Empowered Committee(hereinafter being referred to as 
‘CEC’) constituted under the directions given by this Court in Writ 
Petition(Civil) No. 202 of 1995. Consequently, the applicant preferred 
an application to the CEC seeking permission to construct the health/
eco-resort on the land mentioned above asserting that the said 
chunk of land was not a forest land and had been acquired under 
valid title deeds and thus, the prayer for permission to construct 
may be allowed. However, the prayer made by the applicant was 
not accepted whereupon, the applications under consideration came 
to be filed before this Court. 
3.	
The State Government had previously taken a stand in its counter 
that the land in issue falls within the limits of Pachmarhi Wildlife 
Sanctuary and therefore, by virtue of the directions issued by the 
CEC vide letter dated 2nd July, 2004, no commercial activity was 
permissible thereupon, without the permission of this Court.
4.	
Much water has flown during pendency of the original application(I.A. 
No.2930 of 2010) which has remained pending for almost 14 years. 
For sake of convenience, a chronological flow chart of dates and 
events is narrated hereinbelow in a tabular form: -
CHRONOLOGICAL FLOW CHART OF
DATES AND EVENTS
BACKGROUND FACTS IN RELATION TO I.A. No.2930 of 2010
S.No.
DATE
EVENT
1. 
01.06.1977
The Government of Madhya Pradesh notified 
Pachmarhi Sanctuary under Section 18(1) of 
the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 but did not 
specify/demarcate the area to be included/
excluded in the Sanctuary. 
2. 
01.05.1991
The owner of the plots in question, Mr. 
Dennis Torry obtained permission to sale 
from the Government of Madhya Pradesh as 
required under Clause 16 of Chapter-IV Part 
1 of Revenue Book Circular issued by the 
Government of Madhya Pradesh.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
729
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
3. 
13.09.1991
The applicant purchased the subject plots of 
land vide sale deed dated 13th September,1991.
4. 
10.05.1996
In light of order dated 10th May,1996 passed by 
this Court in W.P.(C) No.262 of 1995, the State 
Government issued instructions to the Collector 
to expedite the proceedings of settlement of 
rights in National Parks/Sanctuaries.
5. 
23.10.1996
In compliance of the abovementioned order, 
Collector, Hoshangabad made a proclamation 
under Section 21 of the Wild Life(Protection) 
Act, 1972 inviting claims from the affected 
persons.
6. 
20.06.2000
After inviting claims and hearing the objections, 
Collector, Hoshangabad passed various orders 
determining the rights of the affected people 
and vide order dated 20th June, 2000, Civil/
Nazul area of Pachmarhi Town was excluded 
from the Sanctuary.
7. 
15.12.2000
Application was preferred by the applicant 
seeking mutation based on registered sale 
deed dated 13th September, 1991. The SDO 
directed the same to be mutated in the name 
of M/s Shewalkar Developers Ltd., through 
Ashutosh Shewalkar.
8. 
2002
PIL bearing W.P No. 5937 of 2002 was filed 
before the High Court seeking directions to 
stop illegal construction activities in reserved/
protected area at Pachmarhi, wherein a six-
member Committee was constituted to examine 
the issue.
9. 
15.01.2004
The High Court vide interim order passed in 
W.P. No. 5937 of 2002, directed that
the order 
of exclusion of Cantonment and Civil/Nazul 
area of Pachmarhi Town and 33 revenue 
villages from the Pachmarhi Sanctuary and 
settlement of rights passed by the District 
Collector, Hoshangabad shall remain stayed 
until further orders.
730
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
10. 
2005
The report of six-member Committee suggested 
that Nazul area within the administrative control 
of SADA and army cantonment area falling in 
Pachmarhi plateau may be considered to be 
deleted from the boundary of the Sanctuary.
11. 
31.03.2005
The State Government following the advice of 
the State Wildlife Advisory Board moved the 
Government of India for seeking approval of 
National Board for Wildlife(NBWL) for excluding 
these areas.
12. 
24.10.2005
The Standing Committee of the NBWL, vide 
letter dated 24th October, 2005, recommended 
exclusion of cantonment and Civil/Nazul Area.
13. 
2006
The applicant approached the High Court 
by filing W.P(C) No. 14478 of 2006, being 
aggrieved by inaction of the respondents in 
deciding the application seeking permission 
to construct health/eco-resort on the subject 
plots of land.
14. 
22.11.2006
The High Court permitted the applicant to move 
an application before the CEC.
15. 
22.02.2007
The applicant preferred an application before 
the CEC being I.A No. 1008 of 2007. 
16. 
19.09.2008
The CEC submitted a report dated 16th/19th 
September, 2008 before this Court, in IA 
Nos.2202-2203 of 2007, filed by the Cantonment 
Board. 
17. 
29.03.2010
The CEC considered the application filed by 
the applicant seeking permission to construct 
health/eco-resort and observed that an affidavit 
dated 1st February, 2010 has been filed by 
the State Government clearly stating that
the 
applicant’s land falls within the Sanctuary 
and was purchased in violation of the Wild 
Life(Protection) Act, 1972. The CEC also 
intimated the applicant that no recommendation 
could be passed by it in absence of an order 
passed by the Supreme Court.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
731
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
I.A. No.2930 of 2010 CAME TO BE FILED BEFORE  
THIS COURT
S.No.
DATE
EVENT
1. 
2010
Aggrieved by the order of CEC, the applicant 
approached this Court by filing I.A. No.2930 
of 2010.
2. 
2011
Government of Madhya Pradesh filed an 
affidavit before this Court stating that Pachmarhi 
Township may be excluded from the forest area 
of Pachmarhi Sanctuary so that difficulties of 
the residents of Pachmarhi Township can be 
sorted out.
3. 
12.08.2013
This Court accepted the recommendations of 
the CEC for excluding 395.939 Ha. land of 
Civil/Nazul area from the sanctuary in which 
the subject plots are situated.
4.
15.04.2017
The applicant moved I.A. No.3963 of 2017, 
seeking to place additional documents on 
record depicting functional resorts and hotels 
around the area where the applicant’s plot is 
situated.
5.
09.08.2017
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and 
Climate Change issued ESZ notification.
6.
16.04.2018
This Court de-tagged I.A. Nos.2929-2931 of 
2010 filed by the applicant herein from other 
I.A.s concerning the cantonment area.
7.
04.10.2018
This Court allowed the application for 
impleadment for the purposes of directions and 
the application to place additional documents 
on record.
8.
19.08.2019
The State Government was directed to file reply 
to the interlocutory applications.
9.
27.09.2019
This Court directed that response be filed by 
the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as by 
the
CEC.
10.
13.11.2019
The CEC was directed to examine the matter 
and submit its report.
732
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
11.
16.06.2020
The CEC filed its report before this Court, in 
terms of orders passed by this Court objecting 
to the permission sought for by the applicant 
for constructing health/eco-resort on the plots.
12.
22.11.2023
This Court directed the Collector, Hoshangabad 
to file an affidavit annexing therewith a map 
of the aforesaid area of 395.939 hectares 
specifying as to whether the land belonging 
to the applicant(s) is within those 395.939 
hectares or beyond it.
The applicant was directed to place on record 
as to whether it has obtained the necessary 
permission for acquiring the land.
13.
13.04.2023
The applicant moved I.A. No.79064 of 2023, 
seeking leave to amend the I.A. No.2930 of 
2010, in light of the CEC report dated 16th 
June, 2020.
14.
12.02.2024
The State Government filed compliance affidavit 
in terms of order dated 22nd November, 2023.
5.	
Another litigation took place regarding other transactions of land done 
by Dennis Torry and it will be essential to trace the history thereof.
Chronological list of events in relation to the plot are being narrated 
hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference: -
5.1	 The District Collector, Hoshangabad registered suo moto 
revisions against the mutation orders issued in favour of Kripa 
Torry and Sanjay Bhandari(purchasers of land from Dennis Torry) 
and vide order dated 9th August, 2004, these revisions were 
allowed holding that the transfer of land by the perpetual
land 
holder Rodrigues in favour of Dennis Torry on 8th September, 
1977 was illegal and without force of law and thus, mutation 
of land in favour of Dennis Torry was illegal. The transfer and 
consequent mutation in favour of Sanjay Bhandari and Shri 
Kripa Torry(son of Dennis Torry) was quashed and set aside by 
the District Collector vide order dated 9th August, 2004. 
5.2	 The aforesaid order was challenged by the purchasers by filing 
an appeal to the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh which 
came to be allowed and the order dated 9th August, 2004
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
733
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
passed by the District Collector was quashed by learned Single 
Member, Board of Revenue vide order dated 16th April, 2007. 
5.3	 The Chairman of Revenue Board registered a suo moto revision 
and vide order dated 15th March, 2011, set aside the order 
passed by the learned Single Member.
5.4	 The land owners Shri Sanjay Bhandari and Shri Kripa Torry 
preferred a Writ Petition No. 8098 of 2011 for questioning the 
legality of order dated 15th March, 2011 and the said writ petition 
was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court vide order dated 3rd January, 2014 thereby, reversing 
the order dated 15th March, 2011 passed by the Board of Revenue. 
6.	
This Court is apprised that the State has preferred an appeal(Writ 
Appeal No. 2100 of 2019) against the order passed by the learned 
Single Judge which is still pending adjudication and no order of stay 
is passed in the said writ appeal.
7.	
The CEC has submitted a report dated 16th June, 2020 in these 
proceedings objecting to the permission sought by the applicant. The 
applicant has also filed objection to the report of the CEC.
8.	
The issue which has now been raised by the State of Madhya 
Pradesh is with respect to the identification of the land owned by the 
applicant contending that the same forms a part of the Pachmarhi 
Wildlife Sanctuary. Considering the above contention, this Court 
raised the following query on
22nd November, 2023: - 
“2. We, therefore, direct the Collector, Hosangabad to file 
an affidavit annexing therewith a map of the aforesaid area 
of 395.939 hectares and also specify as to whether the 
land belonging to the applicant(s) is within those 395.939 
hectares or beyond that area.”
9.	
In compliance of the said direction, an affidavit has been filed on 
behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh(also referred to as, ‘compliance 
affidavit’). The relevant portions thereof are extracted hereinbelow: -
“2. That, this Hon’ble Court has raised following queries 
to the respondent/State of M.P.:-
(i) To annex the map demarcating an area of 395.939 
hectares of the Nazul Land falling in the Panchmarhi
734
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Plateau, which was to be excluded from the Panchmarhi 
Wildlife Sanctuary as per order dated 12.08.2013 passed 
by this Hon’ble Court in I.A. No.2202-2203.
In respect of aforesaid, it is pertinent to mention here that 
the said map demarcating an area of 395.939 hectares 
of Nazul Land falling in the Panchmarhi Plateau, the Plot 
No.14/3 area 59255 sq. ft. and 14/4 area 49365 sq. ft. 
are excluded from Panchmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary and the 
same are within the area of 395.939 hectares and recorded 
as Nazul Land in the name of State of M.P.
A true copy of colored map of is being marked and filed 
herewith as Annexure A-1. 
(ii) The Collector Hosangabad was directed to file an 
affidavit annexing therewith a map of the aforesaid area 
of 395.939 hectares and also specify as to whether the 
land belonging to the applicant is within those 395.939 
hectares or beyond that area.
In respect of aforesaid, it is pertinent to mention here that 
the Collector, Hoshangabad vide affidavit dated 06.01.2024 
stated that the land mentioned, NazulBhumi Sheet No.20, 
Plot No.14/3 and 14/4, area 59255 sq. ft. and 49365 sq. 
ft. total area 108900 sq. ft. is situated in Panchmarhi and 
recorded as maintenance Khasra in the Government of 
M.P. The plot No.14/3, 14/4 is within the area of 395.939 
hectares which was excluded from the Panchmarhi 
Wildlife Sanctuary.
2. That, it is respectfully submitted that in respect of Plot 
No.14/3 and 14/4 a
report was sought from Sub-Divisional 
Officer, Revenue, Pipariya whereby it was reported that Plot 
No.14/3 and 14/4 are recorded in name of State of M.P. in 
Sheet No.20 of Nazul Maintenance Khasra No.2023-24, 
said land of Plot No.14/3 and 14/4 is vacant on the 
spot, there is no kind of construction over there, said 
plots are situated under urban area of Panchmarhi. 
Moreover, the permission for construction/re-
construction in the Cantonment Board, Panchmarhi 
lies under the jurisdiction of Chief Executive Officer,
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
735
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
Cantonment Board, Panchmarhi and the permission 
for construction/re-construction in the Special Area 
Development Authority (SADA), Panchmarhi lies with 
the jurisdiction of Chief Executive Officer, Special 
Area Development Authority (SADA), Pachmarhi, In 
respect of above, no permission for construction/re- 
construction was issued by the Tehsildar, Pipariya.
8. That, on 03.01.2014, the Hon’ble High Court of M.P. at 
Jabalpur passed an order in W.P. No.8098/2018 in petition 
filed by Kripa Tori and others challenging the order dated 
15.03.2011 of the Board of Revenue. The Hon’ble High 
Court set aside the order dated 15.03.2011 and thereby 
restored the previous order dated 22.07.1995 whereby the 
order of the Nazul Adhikari had been affirmed.
A true copy of the order dated 03.01.2014 passed by the 
Hon’ble High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in Writ Petition 
No.8098/2011 is being marked and filed herewith as 
Annexure A-9.
It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid order 
dated 03.01.2014 of the Hon’ble High Court is in respect 
of Plot No.14/1 and 14/2 whereas the applicant herein is 
claiming relief in respect of Plot No.14/3 and 14/4 which 
were purchased by Ashutosh S/o Shriram Shewalkar and 
M/s Shewalkar Developers Pvt. Ltd. on 13.09.1991. The 
said Plot No.14/3 and 14/4 at present are recorded in the 
name of State of M.P. as Nazul Land. The State of Madhya 
being aggrieved with the
order dated 03.01.2014 has 
filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble 
High Court which is pending adjudication as Writ Appeal 
No.2100/2019.
9. That, it is submitted here that the said proceedings 
before the Hon’ble High Court pertains to Kripa Tori 
&Ors. and the present intervenor M/s Shewalkar 
Developers was not a party before any of the Revenue 
Courts or the High Courts.
10. That, as per notification dated 19.08.2017, the 
area under the entire Pachmarhi region admeasuring
736
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
1532.521 hectares has been declared as “Eco-sensitive 
Zone” and the Plot No.14/3 and 14/4 fall within the 
notified boundaries of said notification.
11. That, in view of notification dated 09.08.2017 “no 
new resort can be constructed and only repairs etc. can 
be done”. Moreover, the Hon’ble High Courtvide interim 
order dated 01.11.2002 in W.P. No.5937/2002 stayed the 
construction by making following observation:-
“Subject to hearing other side, further construction in and 
around Pachmarhi Hill Resort is stayed till further order”.
The aforesaid clarification about stay order being 
applicable only to new construction has been reiterated 
by the Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 22.01.2004 
in following words:-
“By further order dated 13.07.2004, the interim order was 
clarified that the order of stay will not come in the way 
of repairing of roads by the State or carrying out repairs 
to existing building by respective provided, however, that 
repairs work of any building can be undertaken only after 
taking due permission from the concerned authority.””
(emphasis supplied)
10.	 Shri D.S. Naidu, learned senior counsel representing the applicant 
drew the Court’s attention to the order dated 15th December, 2000 
passed by the Department Officer(SDO), Pipariya on the application 
preferred by the applicant seeking mutation based on a registered sale 
deed dated 13th September, 1991 executed by the land owner Dennis
Torry in favour of the applicant. The SDO accepted the said application 
taking note of the fact that Plot No.14 admeasuring 3,23,365 sq. 
ft. was entered in the name of Dennis Torry who sought and was 
granted permission to sell the plot in question, by the Government 
of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 1st May, 1991. Thereafter, by 
a registered sale deed dated 13th September, 1991, Dennis Torry 
had sold the subject plots of land to Ashutosh Shewalkar on behalf 
of the applicant company. Consequently, the SDO directed that the 
land sold by Dennis Torry should be mutated in the name of M/s 
Shewalkar Developers Ltd. through Ashutosh Shewalkar, resident 
of Nagpur. There is no dispute that the aforesaid order passed by
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
737
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
the jurisdictional Revenue Officer in favour of the applicant has not 
been questioned in any Court of law.
11.	 Shri Naidu also drew the Court’s attention to the report of the CEC 
dated 16th June, 2020, as per which the permission to construct 
has been denied to the applicant on the ground that the State of 
Madhya Pradesh had filed an affidavit stating that the land falls in the 
Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary and that the same had been purchased 
in violation of the provisions of the Wild Life(Protection) Act, 1972.
12.	 Shri Naidu contended that this objection raised by the State with 
reference to the Eco Sensitive Zone(hereinafter being referred to 
as ‘ESZ’) notification dated 9th August, 2017 is totally against the 
material available on record. He drew the Court’s attention to the 
site map dated 26th December, 2023(Annexure A-1 annexed with the 
compliance affidavit dated 12th February, 2024 filed by the respondent-
State of Madhya Pradesh) to contend that as a matter of fact, the 
land owned by the applicant is located right on the periphery of the 
Nazul land, at a distance of about 10 kms. from the forest area and 
therefore, the same is well beyond the ESZ area.
13.	 Shri Naidu further submitted that in view of the categoric assertion 
made in the compliance affidavit dated 12th February, 2024, filed on 
behalf of the State, it is clear that the plots in question are located in 
the
urban area of Pachmarhi and thus, there is no question of these 
plots being covered either under the wildlife sanctuary or the ESZ 
area. He thus urged that the applicant deserves the relief sought for.
14.	 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have 
opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Naidu. Learned counsel 
for the State of Madhya Pradesh urged that the plots in question 
are subject matter of litigation in the writ appeal pending before the 
Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and thus, the 
applicant should await the outcome of the aforesaid writ appeal 
before seeking permission to construct the health/eco-resort on the 
land in question. 
15.	 His further contention was that the plots in question are recorded in 
the name of the State of Madhya Pradesh and hence, the applicant 
cannot claim any right thereupon.
16.	 Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf 
of the CEC submitted that in view of the ESZ notification dated 9th
738
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
August, 2017, permission to raise a new construction on the land in 
question cannot be granted and whatever permissions are sought 
for, have to be routed through the CEC.
17.	 Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India adopted the 
submissions advanced by the standing counsel for the State and 
learned Amicus Curiae.
18.	 We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions 
advanced at bar and have gone through the material placed on record.
19.	 It is not in dispute that the applicant herein was never impleaded 
in any of the proceedings before the Revenue Courts or the High 
Court as has been emphatically stated in Para-9 of the compliance 
affidavit dated 12th February, 2024. It is thus, clear that irrespective 
of the fact that the order passed by the District Collector dated 9th 
August, 2004, purportedly covers entire area of the Plot No. 14 and 
the transactions done in favour of and by Dennis Torry, the sale deed 
executed in favour of the applicant and the mutation made in its name 
had never been questioned in any Court of law. Neither the Revenue 
Department nor the State Government authorities took the trouble 
of impleading the applicant as party in any of the abovementioned 
litigations. 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 Nazul lands in the revenue 
records. The categoric stand in the compliance affidavit filed by the 
State(reproduced supra) fortifies the claim of the applicant that these 
plots are falling under the urban area.
20.	 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.
21.	 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. However, it can be said without a 
cavil of doubt that activities, if any, on the Plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4 
purchased by the applicant from Dennis Torry would have to be 
carried out strictly in accordance with the ESZ notification dated 9th
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
739
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
August, 2017, issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and 
Climate Change. Nonetheless, the applicant would be at liberty 
to satisfy the authorities that the plots in question are beyond the 
Eco-Sensitive Zone. 
22.	 Furthermore, since the writ appeal pending before the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court arises out of the orders passed in relation to the 
title rights of Dennis Torry, from whom the applicant purchased the 
plots in question, the activities, if any, undertaken by the applicant 
on the said plot of land would also remain subject to the outcome 
of the said writ appeal. 
23.	 We, therefore, direct that 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. 
24.	 While deciding the application filed by the applicant, the authorities 
shall also bear in mind the fact that it is the pertinent case presented 
before this Court 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.
25.	 The application/s shall be decided within a period of two months 
from today. Needless to say, that in the event of any adverse orders 
being passed, the applicant
shall be at liberty to challenge the same 
as per law.
26.	 The applications are disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Result of the case: 
Applications disposed of.