Legal Data by
January 16, 2017
January 16, 2017
January 16, 2017
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 5 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 3 months to vacate the land and said that they could not claim compensation. This order was stayed by the Supreme Court. In 2016, 1000 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.
Refusal to give up land for the project
Demand for rehabilitation
Demand for legal recognition of land rights
Forest and Non-Forest, Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)
Total investment involved (in Crores):
Type of investment:
Year of Estimation
Page Number In Investment Document:
Has the Conflict Ended?
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Forest and Scheduled Area Governance Laws, Environmental Laws, Constitutional Law, Procedural Laws
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Non-implementation/violation of FRA
Scheduled Tribe status or lack of status
Status of Case In Court
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
Supreme Court; Madras High Court
Appeal Nos. 3438-3439 of 2020; W.P.Nos.10098 of 2008
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Reported Details of the Violation:
Date of Violation
Location of Violation
Nature of Protest
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Tamil Nadu Forest Department
PSUs Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?
Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached
Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict: