NGT Issue Notice Over Illegal Hotels Near Tiger Reserve

RANCHI, May 28, 2026: The National Green Tribunal's eastern zonal bench has issued notices to the National Tiger Conservation Authority and the Jharkhand state government after taking cognisance of a petition alleging large-scale, unauthorised commercial construction within the eco-sensitive zone surrounding the Palamu Tiger Reserve and in and around Betla National Park, Netarhat and the Mahuadanr Wolf Sanctuary. The NGT has found the petition fit for hearing and scheduled the next date for July 8, 2026.

The petition, filed by environmental activist Govind Pathak, puts a specific and significant number at the centre of the complaint: approximately 59 hotels and resorts are reportedly under active construction within the eco-sensitive zone, two of which are allegedly located within the Palamu Wildlife Sanctuary itself. If verified, those two locations would not represent a regulatory grey area, they would represent construction inside a protected area, which is categorically prohibited under Indian wildlife law regardless of any other approvals.

NGT Issue Notice Against Unauthorised Hotel Construction in Jharkhand's Palamu Tiger Reserve Zone

The petition alleges that developers are executing commercial construction within the eco-sensitive zone in direct violation of prescribed environmental norms. The ESZ framework around a tiger reserve is not an informal buffer. It is a legally notified zone with specific activity restrictions, approval requirements and monitoring mechanisms designed to protect the core wildlife habitat from the pressures of uncontrolled commercial development in the surrounding landscape.

What makes the Palamu case particularly concerning, according to the petition, is not just the number of construction projects but the complete absence of the governance infrastructure that should have been in place before any of them received approvals. The petition states that no zonal master plan, no tourism master plan and no monitoring committee has been constituted for the Netarhat ESZ despite these being mandatory requirements under the ESZ notification. In other words, the approvals and oversight mechanisms that the law requires to exist before commercial development can proceed appear not to have been established, yet construction is continuing at scale.

59 Hotels Under Construction, Two Reportedly Inside Palamu Wildlife Sanctuary

The claim of 59 hotels and resorts under construction in the ESZ at one time is not a finding of isolated violations. It describes a pattern of commercial activity that, if the petition's facts are accepted by the tribunal, suggests systemic regulatory failure, either in the approval process, the enforcement mechanisms, or both. The distinction between the 57 properties in the eco-sensitive zone and the two allegedly inside the Palamu Wildlife Sanctuary is legally significant: construction in an ESZ may be challengeable on regulatory grounds, but construction inside a wildlife sanctuary is a direct violation of the Wildlife Protection Act, which carries stricter consequences.

The Palamu Tiger Reserve, located in the Latehar and Palamu districts of Jharkhand, covers a total area of over 1,000 square kilometres and is one of the original nine tiger reserves established under Project Tiger in 1973. Betla National Park forms its core, while the broader reserve includes buffer zones and corridors that are critical for tiger movement across the region. The Mahuadanr Wolf Sanctuary, also within the petition's scope, is notable as one of the few habitats in India where the Indian wolf is specifically protected.

The Petitioner's Three-Part Demand to the Tribunal

Govind Pathak's petition asks the NGT for three specific forms of relief. The first is an immediate ban on all illegal construction activities within the eco-sensitive zone. The second is the demolition of structures already built in violation of applicable environmental and wildlife regulations. The third is accountability, the fixing of responsibility on the government officials who failed to enforce regulations while construction proceeded, and the taking of appropriate action against them.

The demolition demand is the most legally contested element of the three. NGT orders for demolition of completed or partially completed structures in eco-sensitive zones have been contentious in past cases, courts have weighed the principle of strict environmental enforcement against questions of proportionality, vested rights and practical enforceability. Whether the tribunal grants that relief, modifies it or replaces it with alternative remedies will depend on the evidence presented and the positions taken by the NTCA and the Jharkhand government at the July 8 hearing.

A Pattern Repeating Across India's Wildlife Corridors

The Palamu case sits within a wider national pattern that the NGT and the Supreme Court have been grappling with for several years. Eco-sensitive zones surrounding tiger reserves, national parks and wildlife sanctuaries across India have become magnets for hospitality investment, partly because of the tourism value of wildlife proximity, and partly because regulatory enforcement in remote forest areas has historically been inconsistent.

The NGT has previously intervened in similar cases near Kaziranga National Park in Assam, the BRT Tiger Reserve in Karnataka and the Similipal Tiger Reserve in Odisha. In each case, the pattern is recognisable: construction begins before required approvals are in place or in areas where approvals cannot legally be granted, a petitioner approaches the tribunal, notices are issued and hearings are scheduled. What happens after the hearings, whether demolitions are carried out, whether officials are held accountable, whether the monitoring infrastructure is actually created varies significantly from case to case.

The NGT's decision to take cognisance and issue notices to both the NTCA and the Jharkhand government puts the institutional responsibility for what has happened in Netarhat squarely on record. The July 8 hearing will determine what the tribunal asks both parties to produce in response, and how much of the petition's factual basis survives scrutiny.