Constitutional Duty to Restore Ecological Zones Supersedes Humanitarian Delays in Removing Forest Encroachments

The appeals concern two primary issues: the ecological preservation of Reserve Forests and Tiger Reserves in Tamil Nadu, and the rehabilitation claims of displaced tea estate workers from the Bombay Burma Trading Corporation Limited (BBTCL) following the area's declaration as a Protected Area

The Agasthyamalai landscape, covering approximately 3,500 sq. km across Tamil Nadu and Kerala, suffers from massive encroachments, including over 5,000 hectares in the Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve (SMTR) alone

Previous Central Empowered Committee (CEC) reports highlighted that the State continued to provide infrastructure and welfare subsidies to illegal encroachers, including 118 government employees

While BBTCL handed over 97% of its leased land, significant permanent infrastructure remains, and a lease rent liability of over ₹4,655 crore is owed to the State

1. Whether the State of Tamil Nadu has fulfilled its constitutional and statutory obligations to evict encroachers and restore the ecological integrity of the Agasthyamalai landscape

2. Whether the continued provision of government utilities and infrastructure to encroachers within Reserved Forests is legally permissible

3. Whether the State's rehabilitation efforts for displaced workers and the recovery of forest land from BBTCL are commensurate with judicial directions

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which mandate the protection of tiger habitats and prohibit non-forestry activities without central approval

Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India, establishing the state’s duty to protect the environment

"Eco-centric" approach and the Principle of Restitution established in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, which prioritizes the intrinsic value of nature over anthropocentric interests and mandates the restoration of damaged ecosystems

Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973, regarding disciplinary action for employee misconduct

The Court observed that despite decades of litigation and specific High Court orders, the State's enforcement remained "meagre," with only 1.8% of encroached land reclaimed in certain divisions

The Court rejected the State's "humanitarian" justifications as a basis for indefinite delay, noting that legitimizing illegal occupation through government subsidies (e.g., PDS shops and Anganwadis) directly contradicts the Forest (Conservation) Act

By applying the Godavarman eco-centric doctrine, the Court reasoned that the Agasthyamalai landscape's status as a global biodiversity hotspot creates a non-negotiable imperative for restoration

The Court found the presence of 118 government-employee encroachers to be a "grave dereliction of duty" and determined that the State's phased rehabilitation plan lacked the necessary "speed and rigour" to meet constitutional standards

It directed: (i) the preparation of a time-bound division-wise eviction and restoration plan; (ii) a blanket moratorium on all welfare schemes and new non-forestry activities in encroached areas [para. 66(v)]; (iii) immediate disciplinary action and the imposition of environmental restitution charges on government-employee encroachers [para. 66(iv)]; (iv) the removal of all government facilities and unauthorized resorts within six months [para. 66(viii-ix)]; and (v) the recovery of ₹4,655 crore in lease rent from BBTCL for the CAMPA fund [paras. 16, 59]. The State of Kerala was directed to transfer all relevant land records to Tamil Nadu within three months [para. 66(x)]