Published Sep 29, 2026 | 5:51 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 29, 2026 | 5:54 PM
Supreme court of India
The Supreme Court on Tuesday resumed hearing the long-pending case concerning alleged encroachments in the Megamalai forest region of Tamil Nadu, with the bench questioning the State government’s position on the Ilavam Panju (silk cotton) plantations in the reserve forest area.
During the hearing, the court observed that once an area has been notified as a forest, it has to be treated as a forest, and questioned why the government was encouraging plantations in such areas. The court also indicated that its position on removing encroachments arising from Ilavam Panju plantations remained unchanged. The judgment in the case was reserved at the end of Tuesday’s hearing.
Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, told the court that several portions of Megamalai had not originally been forests but were subsequently notified as reserve forest. The judges, however, questioned this distinction, insisting that there cannot be another interpretation of the notification.
The judges also questioned why the government was encouraging Ilavam Panju plantations in an area that had been declared forest land. The court noted that Ilavam Panju plantations had resulted in encroachments in the region and indicated that there was no change in its position that such encroachments should be removed.
The court also observed that Ilavam Panju cultivation had been promoted by individuals involved in lending activities, allegedly to facilitate their business interests, resulting in the continued encouragement of plantations built by encroaching upon forest land.
The State government, however, argued that the people who had established Ilavam Panju plantations in the area were residents, and that outsiders had not entered the region and established plantations. The government also told the court that no recent pattas had been issued to the residents. According to the State, the pattas held by some residents date back to 1982.
The government submitted that attempts to remove people holding such pattas could create a law-and-order problem in the region. The State further pointed out that protests take place whenever the case comes up for hearing before the Supreme Court and urged the court to consider this situation.
At the same time, the government made it clear that it was prepared to recover land from persons occupying forest land without valid pattas or other legal authorisation. It said notices had already been issued to some people who were found to be occupying land without the required patta or permission, and steps had been initiated to evict them.
Advocate Parameswar, appointed to assist the court in the matter, told the bench that Megamalai had been declared a reserve forest in 1978.
He submitted that people living in the forest area could be classified as Scheduled Tribes or as forest-dependent communities only if they satisfied the relevant requirements, including having lived there for three generations.
However, he argued that a large number of people currently residing in the Megamalai forest area were encroachers.
The Tamil Nadu government questioned how people who had been living in the forest area even before the enactment of the Forest Rights Act could simply be treated as encroachers. The State argued that people who had lived in the forest for generations and depended on it for their livelihood could not automatically be categorised as encroachers.
The government also submitted that, before the Forest Rights Act came into force, officials who conducted surveys or inquiries had not provided many of these long-term residents with a proper opportunity to present their claims and explain their circumstances. The State therefore questioned how their status could now be conclusively determined without considering these factors.
Parameswar, however, argued that the government itself had encouraged the establishment of Ilavam Panju plantations in the region. He submitted that since the government had promoted the plantations, it should also bear responsibility for providing rehabilitation to the plantation workers if they were subsequently removed from the forest area.
He further argued that allowing people who had established plantations in the forest area to subsequently claim rights over the land under the Forest Rights Act could create a wrong precedent.
The Tamil Nadu government countered that the Forest Rights Act was enacted to protect the rights and welfare of forest-dependent communities. The State questioned how it could be argued that people who had been living in the region for several generations should be prevented from claiming rights under the law merely because they were residing in a notified forest area.
The government maintained that their claims would have to be examined in accordance with the provisions and objectives of the Forest Rights Act.
The Supreme Court bench also made a distinction between genuine forest-dependent residents and people who may have entered the region from outside for commercial plantation activity. The judges said that outsiders who came into the region specifically to establish Ilavam Panju plantations cannot be permitted to encroach upon forest land.
Parameswar similarly argued that while genuine forest-dependent communities should not be affected, the situation in and around Megamalai was different because the government had encouraged Ilavam Panju plantations, following which the scale of encroachment increased substantially.
He urged the court to take a definitive approach to the issue and said that encroachers should not be permitted to subsequently claim ownership or rights over the land.
After hearing the submissions of the Tamil Nadu government, the court-appointed assisting counsel and the other parties, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment in the case. The court’s eventual order is expected to determine how the competing claims relating to forest protection, existing pattas, long-term residents, Ilavam Panju plantations and rights under the Forest Rights Act should be dealt with in the Megamalai region.
Also Read:
‘Over my dead body’: Generations at home in Agasthyamalai, now ‘encroachers’ on paper
Village of widows: Women pay the price for Puducherry’s alcohol-dependent economy
Also See:
(Edited by R Rajesh Kumar.)
