On Friday (September 12, 2025), the Madras High Court confirmed almost all the findings of the Supreme Court, represented by the Segur Platreau Committee, headed by the Judge of the High Court K. Venkataraman, except for the private qualities of the Tamil Nadu government.
Bench of justice N. Sathish Kumar and D. Bharatha Chakravarthy said: “The parties that bought the land can hold the land and cultivate ecologically and without disrupting elephants, and thus turn, and thus grow.
Follow: Why is this elephant habitat in Nilgiris endangered? | Video Credit: M. Satyamoorty
Reading the operative part of the judgment approved in a huge dose of cases given by a number of resort owners and other against specific findings, the judiciary Chakravarthy said: “We also mentioned the instructions concerning land.
The petitioners in writing included the jungle, Forest Hills Farms and Pension, Gordon Jungle Properties, Jungle Hut, De Rock Jungle Living, Rolling Stones Resort and owners of other real estate located on the ivory corridor. They were damaged to find out Specric that the purchase of land itself, the resort owners, after the Declaraion of the countries as private forests in 1991, was invalid.
In an affidavit on the name Jungle Retreat, its owner Rohan Mathias said he bought Patta’s land in Bokapuram in 1996 and after obtaining all the necessary permits from legal powers.
Meanwhile, the Nilgiris Collector 1.
However, due to the opposition of the local residents to such a notice, the state government 22. November 1991 clarified the clarification of the purchase and sale of these lands, it will not be exposed to any restriction, the department said.
He said that only recently in 2023 the Committee was established under the 1949 1949 Act of 1991.
Furthermore, in 2016, the Association of Hospitality Mudumalai (HAM), of which a department was a founding member, challenged the validity of the 1991 announcement before the High Court and received the interim order of Status Quo on 25 April 2018 subject to the Supreme Court orders.
In addition to this proceedings, Ham independently filed an appeal before the Supreme Court in 2011, which challenged the High Court’s order, in a proposal on a written proposal of 2008, which led to the public order 31.
After nine -long years, the Supreme Court established an appeal on October 14, 2020, which followed the authority of the State Government to issue it 2010 GO, but that it is specific, led by Mr. Venkataraman, consider complaints of those whose immovable qualities will be influenced.
The specialty had a very limited scope of decision -making only about the alleged dispersion in the area of the Elephant Pod GO corridor from 2010, but it was a decision on the title of the center owners about their real estate located on the announced corridor, the petitioners complained.
Although it was pointed out that Ham’s 2016 petition questioning the 1991 announcement took place at the High Court, the Committee concluded that the temporary order of Status Quo in 2018 joined the Supreme Court’s order 2020, they said.
The petitioners who claimed that they had committed incorrectness at such a conclusion that the petitioners claimed that it had no power to decide that the purchase itself, without the consent of the TNPPFA district after 1991, should be considered zero and hostile.
Published – September 12, 2025 20:18
