Hospitality Association of Mudumalai vs In Defence of Environment and Animals and Ors. etc.

(v) The umbrella effect: By preserving a large area for elephants to roam freely, one provides a suitable habitat for many other animal and plant species of an ecosystem. Elephant corridors allow elephants to continue their nomadic mode of survival, despite shrinking forest cover, by facilitating travel between distinct forest habitats. Corridors are narrow and linear patches of forest which establish and facilitate connectivity across habitats. In the context of today’s world, where habitat fragmentation has become increasingly common, these corridors play a crucial role in sustaining wildlife by reducing the impact of habitat isolations. In their absence, elephants would be unable to move freely, which would in turn affect many other animal species and the ecosystem balance of several wild habitats would be unalterably upset. It would also eventually lead to the local extinction of elephants, a species which is widely revered in our country and across the world. To secure wild elephants’ future, it is essential that their uninterrupted movement between different forest habitats is ensured. For this, elephant corridors must be protected. [Para 34][292-A-G]

1.2 Legal intervention in preservation of these corridors has been necessitated because wildlife corridors are threatened by various social, economic and anthropogenic factors, as noted above. Commercial activities such as running of private resorts and construction of new buildings with barbed and electric fences within elephant corridors pose a serious threat of fragmentation and destruction of habitats. The long-term survival of the species depends on maintaining viable habitats and connecting corridors which maintain variance in the species’ gene pool and avoid other risks associated with habitat fragmentation and isolation of species. Overtime, several environmental legislations including the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Wildlife Act have been enacted to provide for the protection of forests and wild animals, with a view to ensuring ecological balance and preserving natural habitats including such corridors. The corridor in the Sigur Plateau of Tamil Nadu connects the Western and the Eastern Ghats and sustains elephant populations and their genetic diversity. The Sigur Plateau has the Nilgiri Hills on its south-western side and the Moyar River Valley on its north-eastern side. Depending on the monsoon, the elephants migrate in search of food and water and during the course of their migration, they have to cross the Sigur Plateau. This migratory path is considered to be very crucial as it connects several contiguous forest areas forming the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve in the states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala, the largest protected forest area in India. [Paras 3537][292-H; 293-A-C; 294-B-C]

State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan (1988) 4 SCC 655 : [1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 455 – relied on.

1.3 Conflicting maps of this corridor were presented before the Madras High Court, which thus directed the State Government to choose between: (i) the elephant corridors identified in the Wildlife Trust of India’s book titled “Right of Passage – Elephant Corridors of India” which were referred to by the Central Government in its letter dated 11.08.2006 to the State Government; or (ii) the single elephant corridor identified by the Expert Committee appointed by the High Court. As per the aforesaid book titled “Right of Passage”, the following 4 corridors lie in the Sigur Plateau region: (i) Avarahalla – Sigur,

(ii) Kalhatti – Sigur at Glencorin, (iii) Moyar – Avarahalla and (iv) Kalmalai – Singara and Avarahalla. The Expert Committee examined all the elephant corridors in the area and identified a single elephant corridor comprising of various elephant corridors in the Sigur Plateau region. The State Government, vide the impugned G.O., notified this single elephant corridor, along the lines of the recommendations made by the Expert Committee. [Para 38][294-D-F]

1.4 The State Government is empowered to take measures to protect forests and wildlife falling within its territory in light of Entries 17A ‘Forest’ and 17B ‘Protection of wild animals and birds’ in the concurrent list and the power of the State Government under the Wildlife Act to notify Sanctuaries and other protected areas. It is an admitted position that the land of the appellants has also been notified as private forest in 1991 under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949, which prohibits cutting of trees in private forests. Given that the classification of the appellants’ land as private forest land is not in dispute here, there is no difficulty in holding that the State Government was empowered to protect the habitats situated on the appellants’ land by notifying an elephant corridor thereupon. [Para 39][294H; 295-A-C]

1.5 Furthermore, since the impugned decision of the High Court, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change vide its Notification S.O. 4498(E) dated 13.12.2019 has declared the entire area in question and adjoining areas around the Mudumalai Tiger Reserve as an Eco-Sensitive Zone. Under this Notification, the State Government of Tamil Nadu has been expressly directed to regulate land use generally, as well commercial establishment of hotels/resorts specifically, in the Eco-Sensitive Zone so established. The “Precautionary Principle” has been accepted as a part of the law of the land. Articles 21, 47, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India give a clear mandate to the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. It is the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures. The Precautionary Principle makes it mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. In order to protect the elephant population in the Sigur Plateau region, it was necessary and appropriate for the State Government to limit commercial activity in the areas falling within the elephant corridor. [Para 40][295-D-G]

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 3 SCC

715 : [1996] 7 Suppl. SCR 465 – relied on.

1.6 The second limb of the appellants’ submissions comprises of questions about the scientific accuracy of the Expert Committee’s Report and contentions that the dimensions as well as the location of the single corridor identified therein are at odds with authoritative scientific publications. It has been argued by the appellants that their resorts and other establishments do not fall within the historic corridors identified in these publications. These assertions were dealt with by the High Court which held that there was material on record to show presence of elephants as well as a past incident of human-elephant conflict, which resulted in the death of a French tourist, in the region where the appellants’ resorts are located. The High Court also held that any absence of elephants from the areas surrounding the appellants’ resorts was, in fact, due to the construction activities of the appellants whereby access of the elephants has been restricted through erection of electric fencing. The Court sees no reason to interfere with the above factual findings of the High Court and also do not find fault in the State Government’s adoption of the recommendations of the High Court-appointed Expert Committee, through the impugned G.O. [Para 41][296-A-D]

1.7 The appellants have contended that there has been substantial variance between the acreage recommended for acquisition by the Expert Committee Report and the acreage in the impugned G.O. It is further alleged that the acreage in the newspaper advertisement by the State Government inviting objections to notification of the corridor is also different from the acreage in the impugned G.O. As all the objections received pursuant to the said newspaper advertisement were rejected by the State Government and since the impugned G.O. purported to adopt the recommendations of the Expert Committee, the appellants allege that the said variance in acreage is arbitrary and unreasonable. It has also been alleged that the District Collector, Nilgiris has acted arbitrarily in sealing their resorts after rejecting the documents submitted by the appellant resorts purporting to show approvals and title. Similarly, it has been alleged that the District Collector went beyond the scope of this Court’s order dated 24.12.2018 wherein immediate removal of electric fences and barbed wire was directed. It is the appellants’ case that non-electric fences as well as fences beyond the notified elephant corridor area were removed by the District Collector. It is just and proper to hold an inquiry to establish the veracity of the above factual objections of the appellants. Therefore, a 3member Inquiry Committee is appointed to decide the individual objections of the appellants and any other persons claiming to be aggrieved by the actions of the District Collector, Nilgiris pursuant to the impugned G.O. and as recorded before the Court through her Plan of Action Report and her twin Action Taken Reports, as also the allegations regarding arbitrary variance in acreage of the elephant corridor under the impugned G.O. [Paras 42, 43][296-E-H; 297-A-D]

T. N. Godavaraman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267 : [1996] 9 Suppl. SCR 982 – referred to.