 |
A view of the land of about 18.5 acres bought for the Mother while she was at the ashram. It is named Eternity. It is named Eternity. Source of image and information: https://auroville.org/page/eternity-forest |
Justice M. Dhandapani, Madras High Court on 6th March dismissed a writ petition by Tracy Alison Skoles, resident, Eternity, Auroville, filed on 26th February 2026 against the Chairperson of the Governing Board of the Auroville Foundation to quash "the Resolution for exchange of land passed in the 66th Meeting of the Governing Board in 2024 and consequent email dated 17th February 2026". The judge also vacated his interim stay order dated 2nd March 2026 due to the petition. The following are based on extracts from the judgement:
On the petitioner's case:
The petitioner said that she, along with more than 10 other residents, are permissive residents of the property (named Eternity) belonging to the Auroville Foundation "situated in the Union Territory of Puducherry outside the Auroville Master Plan area, and the said land was given to “Mother” prior to the enactment of the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988 and the residents have been residing in the said lands as Stewards (caretakers) for more than four decades since 1986 and that they have invested their life savings and due to their sustained efforts, the barren coastal lands has flourished into a natural habitat of several species of flora and fauna".
"On 16.2.2026 when individuals approached the property and demanded opening of gates and threatened demolition of the structures and apprehending harm, police were called upon and the request of the police to the said individuals for production of identification, the persons left the place without disclosing their identity. It is the further averment of the petitioner that vide email dated 17.2.26 of the Special Officer of Auroville Foundation, the residents were informed that survey is to be conducted and any obstruction to the work would be construed as an offence".
The "guidelines and the Rules relating to alienation of lands in exchange have not been followed and necessary environment clearance has not been obtained and further no consultation had been had with the committees selected by the Residents Assembly and other relevant bodies".
The "land exchanges must be conducted strictly in accordance with the Auroville Foundation Act and Rules and it should be in consonance with the principles laid down for exchange or purchase of lands and the office memorandum of the Government of India have provided the manner in which such exchange should be carried out and the potential benefits should outweigh the other costs and adverse impacts of acquisition. However, none of the aforesaid guidelines have been satisfied and, therefore, the exchange is grossly impermissible".
"Therefore, left with no viable alternative, the petitioner has come before this Court so as to preserve their right and against violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution as removal of the petitioner and other residents amounts to deprivation of their property".
On the respondents' case:
Learned "Addl. Solicitor General appearing for the respondents tracing the formation of the Auroville Foundation and the vision of Divine Mother, submitted that only on the directions of the Apex Court in the case of S.P.Mittal – Vs – Union of India (1983 (1) SCC 51), considering the alarming situation as was existing then, the Auroville Foundation Act was enacted and Government of India took over the said property on the basis of the Act. The Act also recognizes another body called the Residents Assembly, which has only an advisory role and perform recommendatory functions in order to aid and assist the Governing Board. The Residents’ Assembly comprises all the residents of Auroville, who are permissive occupants and who cannot claim any title, ownership and possession over the lands, assets or projects of Auroville. Further the Supreme Court in The Auroville Foundation – Vs – Natasha Storey 2025 INSC 348) held that the Residents’ Assembly can only supplement and not supplant the functions of the Governing Board and the functions of the Residents’ Assembly is only to advise the Governing Board in respect of activities relating to the residents of Auroville and make recommendations as specified under Section 19 of the Act".
"It is the further submission of the learned Addl. Solicitor General that the petitioner and other residents in the lands are permissive occupants and the Foundation is fully empowered under the Act to manage, administer and deal with the properties vested in it, including the lands under the permissive occupation of the petitioner."
The "stand of the petitioner that they are stewards is wholly erroneous, as there is no stewards in the legal sense and that the responsibility has been assigned to one of the residents to look after the land till such time as it is put to appropriate use. The claim of the petitioner as to rights over the property by the petitioner and the other residents is legally untenable".
The "survey was sought to be undertaken only on the basis of the Governing Board’s resolution and upon refusal of the residents to open the gates and the intervention of the police officials, the authorized personnel who had gone to survey the lands had quietly left the place maintaining civil decorum and, thereafter, the residents were intimated about the survey which was sought to be undertaken and the petitioner’s attempt to characterize the lawful communication as threat is misconceived."
The "Governing Board, in exercise of its statutory powers under the Auroville Foundation Act, had identified and earmarked the foundation properties for the purpose of land exchange to achieve the objectives of the Master Plan and the resolution was also duly approved and it is done keeping in mind the betterment, benefit and welfare of the Foundation and the petitioner, being a permissive occupant, cannot have any grievance over the same, nor could act as a stumbling block in the continuance of the project. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and, accordingly, it is prayed that this Court may dismiss the writ petition".
The judgement:
"It is not the case of the petitioner that she is a public spirited individual and infringement of the provisions of the Act and the Rules has necessitated her to file the writ petition; rather, in her individual capacity as resident of the lands, she has approached this Court.
"Though the petitioner has drawn up various provisions of the Act and the Rules to claim that there is infraction and that the said exchange is impermissible, however, the petitioner has no locus to question such an exchange when it is the Governing Board which has resolved for exchange of the land, that too, in the interests of Auroville Foundation and also on the basis of the power vested with it. Therefore, this Court is not addressing any of the concerns raised by the petitioner on the infraction of the Act and the Rules.
"At best, the petitioner could claim that the residents should be protected by giving alternative accommodation in view of the long period of their permissive occupation in the said lands. But the petitioner, as also the other residents, cannot, as a matter of right, claim that the lands cannot be exchanged or put to better utilization by the Governing Board when the Governing Board is vested with power under the Auroville Foundation Act to better deal with the lands, more so when the said exchange is in the interest of the Auroville Foundation.
"Though the petitioner has drawn up various provisions of the Act and the Rules to claim that there is infraction and that the said exchange is impermissible, however, the petitioner has no locus to question such an exchange when it is the Governing Board which has resolved for exchange of the land, that too, in the interests of Auroville Foundation and also on the basis of the power vested with it. Therefore, this Court is not addressing any of the concerns raised by the petitioner on the infraction of the Act and the Rules.
"However, it is to be noted that based on the permission granted by the Foundation, the petitioner and other residents have built their houses in the said place and, therefore, to that extent, their interests should be safeguarded, as otherwise their investment in the house building would vanish. Therefore, at best, this Court could only direct that the occupation of the petitioner and the other residents be protected either in the very same place considering their longstanding stay at the said place or provide an alternate accommodation to the petitioner and other residents of the said place so that their permissive occupation is protected.
"For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner and other residents who are permissive occupants who have been in occupation of the lands and who have put up construction on the basis of the permission accorded by the Foundation from out of their own funds and to give appropriate representation for grant of permission to continue their accommodation in the said place or for allotment of some other dwelling unit and if such a representation is filed, it is open to the respondents/Governing Board to consider the same and pass appropriate orders either granting to continue their permissive accommodation within the said place or allot dwelling unit at any other place for the occupation of the petitioner and other residents and to that effect orders shall be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation. Interim order of stay granted by this Court stands vacated and consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, including the stay petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs."
Full judgment (13 pages, pdf): Madras High Court judgment: Tracy Alison Skoles Vs Chairperson, Auroville Foundation