Tamil Nadu
,
Masinagudi
,
The Nilgiris
Published :
Jan 2017
|
Updated :
January 21, 2025
Supreme Court orders clearing of resorts and buildings in Segur to make way for wildlife
Reported by
Sumana
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
1000
Households affected
23000
People affected
2008
Year started
202
ha.
Land area affected
1000
Households affected
23000
People Affected
2008
Year started
202
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Conservation and Forestry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Protected Areas
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
Sector
Conservation and Forestry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Protected Areas
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

In 2008, a PIL filed in the Madras High Court asked that at least 500 acres of the Segur Plateau be cleared of human habitation after the Wildlife Trust of India identified it as an important elephant migratory path. Based on the court's directive the state government published several versions of a map demarcating five elephant corridors extending over 2800 ha. The maps were contested by the local communities and the many resorts that were affected (some 50 odd resorts).

In the meantime, tribal communities in the area (about 300 families) also filed a PIL asking for their rights to be settled under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The extent of the corridors has been hotly contested with some wildlife biologists, locals and resort owners saying the entire plateau does not need to be protected and that there are several corridors which are free of disturbance and if these are protected, it would be adequate. In 2011, the Madras High Court, based on the state forest department's map, gave the resorts three months to vacate the land and said that they could not claim compensation. This order was stayed by the Supreme Court.

In 2016, 1,000 acres of revenue land in the corridor was notified as reserve forest by the forest department. However, there is still no word on settlement of forest rights or rehabilitation measures that would be extended to the local community. Local villagers are demanding their rights under FRA be settled before the forest department takes control of the land. The court case is still pending and in the meantime there continues to be some police action periodically and continued tension and uncertainty for the villages.

In January 2020, the Supreme Court ordered that the area must be cleared of resorts and other buildings and make way for wildlife. The court appointed the Segur Plateau Elephant Corridor Inquiry Committee (SPECIC) to investigate allegations of arbitrary changes to the elephant corridor's acreage and to hear the resort owners' objections. 

In August 2023, the committee ordered the demolition of 35 resorts in the corridor. Following which, the resort owners filed a case against the SPECIC's orders in the Madras High Court, arguing that the inquiry committee wrongfully declared their property titles void under the TNPPF Act. The court initially extended an interim order that kept demolition notices in abeyance. However, on 14 October, 2024, the court refused to extend the interim order and adjourned the writ petitions to 28 October 2024. The court also asked the state and the resort owners to seek clarification from the Supreme Court on whether the High Court could entertain the writ petitions. 

The Hospitality Association of Masinagudi filed a clarification petition in the Supreme Court.

On 20 December 2024, the Supreme Court upheld its 2020 verdict ordering owners of private properties to vacate the lands falling in the elephant corridor in the Nilgiris. However, a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar allowed the Madras High Court to examine whether an inquiry committee, appointed by the top court, exceeded its scope in addressing objections related to land demarcation and acquisition.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Refusal to give up land for the project

Demand for rehabilitation

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common and Private

Forest and Non-Forest, Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Residential area, Commercial

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Tamil Nadu Forest Department

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

No

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Tourist Resorts

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

N/A

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

WWF-India

5
Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Legal Supporting Documents

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Author
Reported by
Sumana
Show more work
Latest updates
Ukhrul, Kamjong, Tengnoupal, Chandel
Manipur

Several mining agreements in Manipur granted without villagers' consent, environmental clearances

Gir Somanath
Gujarat

Gujarat farmers oppose land acquisition for Kodinar-Somnath railway project

Karbi Anglong
Assam

Controversy erupts over Assam's 1000 MW solar power project in Karbi Anglong

Dima Hasao
Assam

Environmental Devastation and Human Fatalities: The Crisis of Illegal Coal Mining in Dima Hasao's Abandoned Mines

South Goa
Goa

In water-stressed Sancoale, locals protest Bhutani project with 700 swimming pools

Gir Somanath
Gujarat

Gujarat puts solar power project near Gir sanctuary on hold amid protest

Dimapur
Nagaland

Global Naga Forum calls for relocation of Assam Rifles camps from urban areas

Dimapur
Nagaland

DNSU demands relocation of sub-centre in GMC Midland

Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Refusal to give up land for the project

Demand for rehabilitation

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Residential area, Commercial

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Conflicts Map
Conflict Database
About Us