Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court issued extensive directions for the protection, restoration and removal of encroachments from the Agasthyamalai ecological landscape, covering sensitive forest areas including the Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve, and Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary.
The Court noted that although Tamil Nadu had taken certain steps, the response was still far below what the urgency of the situation required. The Court directed a time-bound, division-wise encroachment eviction plan, action against government servants found to be encroachers, discontinuation of public facilities in encroached forest areas, removal of illegal resorts and infrastructure, and quarterly monitoring by the Central Empowered Committee.
The matter was kept part-heard, with the CEC directed to submit its report in sealed cover by 28 August 2026, and the matter listed for further hearing on 1 September 2026.
Facts
The appeals involved two broad issues: first, the preservation of reserve forests, wildlife sanctuaries and tiger reserves in Tamil Nadu; and second, the rehabilitation claim of displaced tea estate workers after the erstwhile Bombay Burma Trading Corporation Limited tea estate in Singampatti was declared a reserved forest, wildlife sanctuary and tiger reserve.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had directed the Central Empowered Committee to conduct a detailed survey of the Agasthyamalai landscape and identify non-forestry activities, forest degradation, encroachments and restoration measures.
The CEC’s reports revealed serious concerns across protected areas. The Agasthyamalai ecological landscape was stated to cover around 3,500.36 sq. km., spreading across parts of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The CEC identified extensive encroachments, incomplete records, illegal infrastructure, poor inter-departmental coordination, government facilities continuing inside encroached lands, and slow enforcement action.
Key Findings From CEC Reports
In Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve, around 4,601 encroachers were stated to have occupied 5,072.653 hectares of reserved forest land. The Court noted that this area is ecologically critical because it forms part of the upper catchment of the Vaigai River and acts as a crucial wildlife corridor.
The CEC also recorded that 118 serving or retired government employees were identified as encroachers, including persons from the Army, Police, CRPF, Forest Department, Revenue Department, Electricity Board, education and other public services.
In Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary, there were 553 encroachers occupying around 427.404 hectares. Boundary disputes and lack of original maps were noted as serious hurdles.
In Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, the encroachment involved around 99 families over 10.16 hectares, many of whom were linked to old dam construction settlements. The CEC recorded that despite rehabilitation offers, several encroachers had refused to vacate.
The CEC also recorded serious concern over illegal resorts, electricity connections, unauthorised infrastructure, government buildings, PDS shops, Anganwadi centres and other facilities continuing in encroached forest areas.
State’s Response
Tamil Nadu submitted that it was committed to implementing the CEC’s recommendations. It stated that steps had been taken towards eviction, rehabilitation, boundary demarcation, drone survey, disciplinary action and withdrawal of facilities from encroached areas.
Regarding the BBTCL issue, the State submitted that out of 8,373.57 acres of leased land, 8,152.13 acres, amounting to 97.35%, had been handed over to the Forest Department. However, 221.44 acres remained in certain estate areas where factories, offices, labour lines, religious structures, bungalows and other buildings existed.
As regards workers, the State stated that 210 workers had received 100% VRS amount, 90 families had been provided apartments, and 59 houses had been constructed under a government housing scheme. Some workers, however, were still intermittently residing inside estate areas.
For SMTR, the State said that it had formulated a resettlement and rehabilitation action plan. Phase I had resulted in relocation of 66 persons and recovery of 52.86 hectares of forest land. It also stated that total recovered land from encroachers was 111.63 hectares. However, against the total encroachment of more than 5,000 hectares, the Court found this progress inadequate.
Issues
The Supreme Court considered whether the State’s steps were sufficient to address decades-old encroachments in ecologically sensitive forests and tiger habitats.
The Court also examined whether humanitarian considerations for long-settled persons could justify indefinite delay in eviction and restoration of forest lands.
Another major issue was whether government facilities, public utilities, transport, electricity connections, resorts and unauthorised infrastructure could continue inside encroached forest areas, thereby legitimising illegal occupation.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the State had taken some positive steps. It noted the handing over of most BBTCL leased land, VRS payments, housing measures, drone survey, relocation of some encroachers, and action initiated against certain government officials.
However, the Court strongly observed that the State’s measures remained “significantly below the threshold of response” required by the seriousness of the problem. The Court noted that encroachments had continued for decades despite orders of the Madras High Court, orders of the Supreme Court and repeated recommendations of expert bodies.
The Court was particularly concerned that only 66 out of 4,601 encroachers in SMTR had been relocated, and only 52.86 hectares out of 5,072.653 hectares had been effectively recovered. It held that this pace was not commensurate with the gravity of the situation.
The Court also observed that procedural steps like drone surveys and boundary demarcation cannot become excuses for indefinite delay, especially in areas where boundaries are already clear and legal proceedings have concluded in favour of the Forest Department.
Court’s Observations On Government Facilities And Encroachments
The Supreme Court held that continuing government facilities inside encroached forest areas creates a serious problem because it gives illegal occupation a sense of legitimacy.
The Court noted that PDS shops and Anganwadi centres were still functioning in encroached forest areas. It held that even limited continuation of such facilities must be ended within a defined short timeframe because such facilities create disincentives for voluntary relocation.
The Court also took serious note of government employee encroachers, observing that persons holding public trust cannot be allowed to illegally occupy protected forest land. It directed urgent disciplinary and legal action against all identified government servants.
Environmental And Constitutional Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that protection of forests, wildlife and ecological systems is not merely a statutory obligation but a constitutional imperative flowing from Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution.
The Court described the Agasthyamalai landscape as a globally significant biodiversity hotspot, home to species such as tigers, elephants, leopards, Indian gaur, sloth bears, Nilgiri langurs and the Great Indian Hornbill.
The Court emphasised that continued inaction affects not only wildlife but also water security, river systems, livelihoods of millions, and India’s environmental obligations.
Rehabilitation And Humanitarian Concerns
The Court recognised that many encroachers were economically vulnerable and some had lived in forest areas for decades. It accepted that eviction must be handled with a humanitarian approach and that rehabilitation and eviction must proceed together.
However, the Court made it clear that humanitarian concerns cannot become a permanent excuse for delaying legally required eviction and ecological restoration. Rehabilitation is important, but it cannot replace the State’s environmental obligations.
Major Directions Issued
The Supreme Court issued several directions, including:
A time-bound, division-wise eviction plan must be prepared and placed before the CEC within one month.
The plan must include physical eviction, rehabilitation wherever applicable, legal action against wilful violators and post-eviction ecological restoration.
The State Law Department must monitor all pending encroachment cases and submit their status before the Court in tabular form.
Disciplinary and legal action must be initiated against 118 government servants found to be encroachers. The State must also consider imposing environmental restitution and restoration charges on present and former government employees found to be encroachers.
A blanket moratorium must be imposed on welfare schemes, public utilities, transport facilities, electricity supply and infrastructure support inside encroached forest areas.
No new non-forestry activity or diversion proposal will be approved within the Agasthyamalai landscape until encroachments are removed and illegal infrastructure is dismantled or dealt with in accordance with law.
Illegal resorts, commercial establishments and tourism-related infrastructure must be made non-operational immediately and dismantled in accordance with law.
Government establishments and unauthorised infrastructure inside forest areas must be discontinued, relocated, dismantled and removed within six months.
The Forest Survey of India must undertake survey, demarcation, geo-referencing and digitisation of the boundaries of KMTR, SMTR and Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary within six months.
If the State fails to ensure compliance, the CEC may recommend deployment of paramilitary forces to assist in removal of encroachments.
Monthly compliance reports must be submitted to the CEC, and the CEC must file quarterly status reports before the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the issue required strict, structured and continuous monitoring. It recognised the State’s initial steps but found them inadequate given the scale of encroachments and the ecological importance of the region.
The Court made it clear that restoration of forest land, protection of wildlife habitats, removal of illegal occupation, and rehabilitation of eligible persons must proceed in a time-bound and accountable manner.
Key Takeaway
Forest protection cannot remain trapped in files, surveys and promises. Where tiger reserves, wildlife sanctuaries, river catchments and biodiversity hotspots are under pressure from encroachments, illegal resorts and government-backed facilities, the State must act with urgency, accountability and measurable results.
