Multiplicity of regulators often results in an enforcement vacuum in ecologically sensitive areas. Discuss in the context of hill-area and protected-area land-use regulation.

In ecologically sensitive areas, one plot of land can come under forest, town-planning, hill-area and district authorities at the same time. In November 2026, the Madras High Court issued an interim order closing 87 resorts inside Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve (STR). These resorts had neither building approval from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) nor permission from the Hill Area Conservation Authority (HACA) to change land use [1]. The case shows that overlapping mandates can leave no one actually enforcing the law.

Layered regulatory web

• Protected-area law: the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (Chapter IV-B, tiger reserves), overseen by NTCA; the Forest Department manages the reserve.
• Planning law: DTCP grants planning and building permission [1].
• Hill-area law: HACA regulates land-use change from residential to commercial [1].
• Ground enforcement: the District Collector [1].

How multiplicity creates a vacuum

• Diffused accountability: each resort lacked two separate approvals [1]. Each regulator could assume the other would act.
• Fait accompli: commercial use began before anyone sought conversion permission [1]. Regulators react to finished buildings instead of preventing them.
• Broken follow-up: sealed resorts kept running "through the back door" [1]. The agency that sealed them did not check again.
• Self-audit problem: the Erode Collector's own report admitted the violations, yet the same office must now enforce the closures [1].
• Courts fill the gap, slowly: in the Sigur elephant-corridor case, the Madras High Court's 2011 order was upheld by the Supreme Court only in October 2020. The Court also set up a committee to hear owners' objections [2].

Why multiple regulators still exist

• Different expertise: ecology, planning and revenue need different skills, and several agencies act as a check on one agency being captured.
• Federal design: land is a State subject, while forests and wildlife are on the Concurrent List. Some overlap is unavoidable.

Way forward

• One public list of every establishment in protected areas, cross-checked against DTCP and HACA records [1].
• Independent monitoring committees on the Sigur model [2].
• Time-bound compliance reports for each establishment, with personal liability for officers who fail to act.
• Regulated, community-based eco-tourism in place of illegal resorts.

Having many regulators is not the problem in itself; the problem is mandates with no link between them. Integrated registries, independent oversight and clear accountability for officers would turn overlapping powers into backup for each other. This would give effect to Articles 48A and 51A(g) and to SDG 15 (Life on Land).