CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has ordered notice to Chennai Metropolitan Development Agency (CMDA) and other respondents directing them to file reply to a petition filed by the Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (CREDAI) challenging the order barring developing of land and raising constructions within one km of the influence zone of the Pallikaranai Ramsar site.
The first division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan, before whom the petition came up for hearing on Tuesday, ordered notice to the respondents seeking them to file reply within two weeks, and accordingly, the bench adjourned the hearing.
Apart from CREDAI, Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Private Limited and Navin Housing and Properties Private Limited also filed the petition.
Senior counsel Vijay Narayan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) south zone bench, on September 24, 2025, passed an order directing the authorities concerned not to grant approval/permission for constructions in the ‘zone of influence’, “arbitrarily” fixing a distance of one km around the Pallikaranai Ramsar site “without any scientific demarcation, statutory notification or hearing the stakeholders”.
Following the orders of the Tribunal, the CMDA imposed a ban on approvals on October 9, 2025, resulting in sudden and complete freezing of constructions on a vast area of approximately 8,397 acres spread across 10 villages under the Greater Chennai Corporation, he said.
The counsel alleged that such a ban was imposed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
According to the petition, the CMDA demarcated three areas – Pallikaranai swamp area, Ramsar site boundary and zone of influence area of one km around the Ramsar site boundary – wherein construction was banned.
The petition alleged that the fixation of zone of influence was “without” any scientific survey or preparation and approval of the Integrated Management Plan as mandated under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017.
The impugned order of the NGT “goes far beyond the jurisdiction” conferred under sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act, 2010. It has effectively created a planning norm of one km ‘no-development zone’ “which is legislative in character”, the petition stated.
It further said the impugned order is “against” the framework provided by RAMSAR Conference of Contracting Parties, and declaration of a site as Ramsar Site does not ipso facto create an automatic one km prohibited zone. Any buffer or influence zone must be site-specific, notified and regulated, not prohibited.