Supreme Court Issues Sweeping Directions to Clear Forest Encroachments Across Agasthyamalai Landscape
A Supreme Court bench found Tamil Nadu’s encroachment removal efforts “significantly below” what the crisis demands, issuing fifteen binding directions covering eviction, moratoriums, and criminal action.
The Supreme Court of India, on 29 May 2026, issued fifteen binding directions to the State of Tamil Nadu and Central authorities to clear thousands of encroachments from protected forests, tiger reserves, and wildlife sanctuaries across the Agasthyamalai landscape. The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, acting on two successive reports of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), found that over 4,600 individuals occupy more than 5,072 hectares of reserved forest land, that 118 of those encroachers are serving or retired government employees, and that the State’s response — despite repeated High Court and Supreme Court orders — had remained largely confined to paperwork. The Court directed eviction plans with fixed timelines, a blanket moratorium on welfare schemes in encroached areas, criminal action against officials who permitted illegal infrastructure, and protection for bona fide enforcement officers.
How the Dispute Reached the Court
The appeals were filed by displaced tea estate workers of the Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited (BBTCL), who were evicted from the Singampatti estate in Tamil Nadu after it was declared a Reserved Forest, Wildlife Sanctuary, and Tiger Reserve under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Their rehabilitation claims formed one strand of the litigation. The second, and larger, strand concerned the ecological preservation of the entire Agasthyamalai landscape.
By an order dated 24 March 2025, the Court directed the CEC to conduct an extensive survey of the Agasthyamalai landscape, covering the Periyar Tiger Reserve, Srivilliputhur Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary, Meghamalai and Thirunelveli Wildlife Sanctuaries. The CEC was asked to document non-forestry activities, provide comparative forest cover data, and recommend restoration measures for reserved forests, tiger habitats, elephant corridors, and other wildlife reserves. Remote sensing satellite imagery and geo-mapping were specifically authorised to expedite the survey.
What the CEC Found: Two Reports, One Damning Picture
The CEC submitted its first interim report (Report No. 33 of 2025) on 10 July 2025, after field visits from 23 to 26 June 2025 covering the Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary (KWS), the Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve (KMTR), the Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve (SMTR), and the Periyar Tiger Reserve.
The SMTR emerged as the most ecologically vulnerable area. It forms the upper catchment of the Vaigai River, a critical water source for five downstream districts. As per official records of 2020, around 4,595 individuals were encroaching upon 5,071.27 hectares of reserved forest land across the Varusanadu, Megamalai, Gandamanur, and Chinnamanur ranges. The CEC found that data on encroachments was scarce, official records were incomplete or inconsistent, and inter-departmental coordination toward enforcement was minimal. Despite specific and time-bound directions from the Madras High Court, the State district administration continued to extend infrastructure support, welfare schemes, and subsidies to encroachers.
A total of 116 government and public utility structures had been constructed inside forest lands without prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Serious violations of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 were documented, with cultivation of silk cotton, cardamom, lemon grass, cashew, and beans spread across over 5,000 hectares of forested hill slopes. No FIRs had been registered for forest encroachment, no encroacher arrests had been made, and no special unit deployment had occurred as of 25 June 2025, despite a Madras High Court order of 17 March 2022 directing the Superintendent of Police, Theni, to form a special task force.
At the KWS, 427.40 hectares were under encroachment, with 237.09 hectares involved in litigation. Original maps of the reserve forest were unavailable.
The CEC’s second report (Report No. 02 of 2026), submitted on 16 January 2026, found that the situation had not materially improved. Verified records of land ownership and encroachments from the District Authorities of Megamalai and adjoining forest divisions were still not furnished. The Special Task Force constituted by the District Collector, Theni, had confined itself largely to updating databases and verifying survey numbers. The Special Police Team headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Andipatti Sub-Division, had restricted its role to maintaining law and order during surveys, with no proactive enforcement or criminal proceedings initiated.
The second report also noted that schools, Anganwadi centres, and Public Distribution System outlets continued to function within encroached forest hamlets. Rather than being closed or relocated, these facilities had merely been “reduced” or kept in limited operation, with the State adopting what the CEC described as a policy of slow and gradual withdrawal that had the effect of legitimising illegal occupation.
In the KMTR, 99 families occupying 10.16 hectares in the Papanasam area had been offered alternative land on multiple occasions — in 2004 at Aladiyur village, in 2021 at Vellanguzhi village, and in May 2025 at Vikramasingapuram Municipality — and had refused each time. Despite having no legal right to remain within the Tiger Reserve, these encroachers continued to enjoy electricity, drinking water, voter identity cards, and access to facilities meant for Kani tribal communities.
The Forest Survey of India submitted a preliminary report indicating a declining trend in forest cover and quality, with satellite images showing agriculture, plantations, buildings, and linear infrastructure fragmenting protected areas. Hilly forest patches were described as existing as “fragmented isolated islands in a sea of human-dominated landscape.”
The State’s Response and the Court’s Assessment
The State of Tamil Nadu filed a detailed reply affidavit acknowledging the CEC’s findings and expressing commitment to implementing its recommendations. The State pointed to several concrete steps: 97.35% of BBTCL’s leased land (8,152.13 acres out of 8,373.57 acres) had been handed over to the Forest Department by 8 May 2025; 210 BBTCL workers had received 100% of their VRS entitlement; 90 families had been provided apartments; and essential public service institutions had been relocated outside estate areas. In SMTR, Phase I of the resettlement programme had resulted in 66 persons being allocated houses and 52.86 hectares of forest land being recovered. A drone survey had been conducted from 24 to 27 February 2026 for boundary demarcation.
The State also candidly acknowledged the challenges: resistance from encroachers leading to law-and-order concerns, ongoing litigation and interim orders delaying enforcement, harassment complaints against forest personnel, demands for alternative land and livelihood support, and logistical difficulties in remote terrain. The State attributed the suspension of the survey and consultation process to the recent conduct of State elections.
The Court acknowledged these difficulties. It accepted that evicting thousands of persons who had been resident in forest areas for extended periods, many of them economically vulnerable, was an onerous task involving administrative, logistical, and humanitarian complexity. However, it held that the obligation to protect ecologically sensitive regions could not stand indefinitely deferred on account of such challenges.
The Court found that the State’s measures, while constituting a step in the right direction, remained “significantly below the threshold of response that the gravity and urgency of the situation demands.” It observed that the encroachments had persisted and proliferated over several decades despite specific and time-bound directions from the Madras High Court, orders from the Supreme Court, and repeated recommendations from expert bodies. The endeavours of the State to remove the encroachments, the Court said, remained in the realm of hollow promises.
The Court was particularly troubled by the finding that 118 serving or retired government employees — including personnel from the Army, Police, CRPF, Forest Department, Revenue Department, Electricity Board, Anganwadi, School Education, Panchayats, and Survey Department — had been identified as encroachers.
The Fifteen Directions
The Court issued the following directions, to be monitored by the CEC:
Eviction plan: A time-bound, division-wise encroachment eviction plan shall be prepared and implemented with clear timelines, measurable milestones, and designated officer-level responsibilities. The plan shall cover physical eviction, rehabilitation where applicable, legal action against wilful violators, and post-eviction ecological restoration to prevent re-encroachment. Failure to adhere to the plan shall attract administrative accountability at the highest level.
Task Force: A dedicated Forest Protection and Encroachment Eviction Task Force shall be constituted at the district level under the Divisional Forest Officer, with support from the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police.
Pending litigation: The State Law Department shall monitor all encroachment cases pending before various forums and take steps for their expeditious disposal. A tabular status report supported by an affidavit shall be filed before the Court on the next date of hearing.
Government servant encroachers: Disciplinary and legal action shall be initiated against all 118 identified government servant encroachers under Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973 and other applicable laws. The State shall consider imposing additional penalties and requiring such persons to deposit environmental restitution and restoration charges with the Tamil Nadu State Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA). Amounts deposited shall be used exclusively for ecological restoration, habitat recovery, afforestation, and forest protection under the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016.
Moratorium on welfare schemes: A blanket moratorium shall be imposed on the extension of welfare schemes, public utilities, transport facilities, electricity supply, and infrastructure support within encroached forest areas, so that illegal occupation is neither incentivised nor legitimised.
Non-forestry activities: A complete prohibition shall apply on the approval or commencement of any new non-forestry activity or diversion proposal within the entire Agasthyamalai landscape under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, until all encroachments are removed and all illegal infrastructure is dismantled or dealt with in accordance with law. Any regularisation proposal shall be placed before the CEC for its opinion before further directions are issued.
Action against officials: Stringent disciplinary, penal, and criminal action shall be proposed against all officials, officers, and Heads of Departments who commenced, facilitated, approved, or permitted illegal infrastructure works within forest areas, particularly within the Megamalai Wildlife Sanctuary. A comprehensive status report shall be filed with the CEC within three months.
Government establishments: All government establishments, facilities, and unauthorised infrastructure within forest areas, including within the SMTR, shall be discontinued, relocated, dismantled, and removed within six months.
Illegal resorts: All illegal resorts, commercial establishments, and tourism-related infrastructure operating within the Megamalai area and other forest lands shall be made non-operational forthwith and dismantled. All electricity connections and unauthorised transmission lines servicing such encroachments shall be disconnected and removed forthwith. This exercise shall be carried out under the supervision of the CEC.
Kerala maps: The Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, shall ensure that all original maps, survey records, settlement records, and land documents pertaining to the Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary in Kerala’s custody are transferred to the Tamil Nadu Forest Department within three months. The Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu, shall coordinate with Kerala to ensure expeditious compliance.
FSI survey: The Forest Survey of India under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change shall survey, demarcate, geo-reference, and digitise the entire boundary of the KMTR, SMTR, and Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary within six months, and shall also map the encroachments and submit its report to all concerned including the CEC.
BBTCL infrastructure: The State Government, in consultation with the CEC, shall inspect and take an appropriate decision regarding the utilisation, retention, relocation, or removal of all buildings, infrastructure, offices, bungalows, labour quarters, religious structures, and other BBTCL establishments proposed to be retained within the forest area of the KMTR.
Protection for enforcement officers: All forest, police, revenue, and other officials involved in survey, demarcation, and removal of encroachments pursuant to the Court’s directions shall be protected from prosecution in relation to bona fide actions taken during the exercise, except in cases involving mala fide, arbitrary action, or abuse of authority.
Paramilitary forces: In case the State Government fails to ensure compliance with the above directions, the CEC may recommend deployment of paramilitary forces to assist in the removal of encroachments.
Compliance reports: The States shall submit monthly compliance reports to the CEC. The CEC shall undertake ground verification and submit quarterly status reports before the Court until all directions are fully complied with to its satisfaction.
BBTCL Lease Rent
On the separate question of lease rent payable by BBTCL in respect of the KMTR, the Madras High Court had, by an order of 18 August 2025 in W.A. No. 1435 of 2024, adjudicated and disposed of the pending disputes between BBTCL and the State Government. The lease rent payable by BBTCL, with interest and penal interest for the period from 1958 up to 31 August 2025, was computed year-wise at a total of Rs. 4,655,24,33,533.21 (Rupees Four Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Five Crore Twenty-Four Lakh Thirty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Thirty-Three and Paise Twenty-One). The Supreme Court directed the State Government to recover all dues from BBTCL, including lease rent, penalties, and costs, in accordance with the Madras High Court’s orders.
Order
The Court directed the CEC to submit its next report in a sealed cover by 28 August 2026. The matter was listed as part-heard for 1 September 2026 for further hearing and consideration. The Amicus Curiae in the proceedings is Shri K. Parmeshwar, and the State of Tamil Nadu was represented by Shri Vijay Narayan, Advocate General.