Madras High Court upholds Auroville Foundation’s land exchange transactions

The case took almost a year, with the final hearings being adjourned nine times. The hearings concluded on 27 February and the judgement was delivered on 4 March 2025 by Hon’ble Justice N Anand Venkatesh, who was assigned the case a month earlier, becoming the fourth judge to hear the case.

Justice Venkatesh rejected the prayers of the petitioner because the Auroville Foundation Act as well as the Auroville Foundation Rules 1997 mention the word “sale” and not “exchange” of lands. Sale of land requires the previous sanction of the Central Government if its value is more than Rs 5 lakhs. But this sanction is not applicable in the case of an exchange. Also the General Financial Rules 2017 only mention that Government sanction is required for sales. The judge then examined the communications between the Government of India and the Auroville Foundation and concluded that the transactions had been conducted under the guidelines provided in the Government of India’s Office Memorandum dated 6 November 2023. The judge therefore refused to interfere with the exchange deeds and stated that the land exchanges are “in line with the Auroville Master Plan and that such exchange of lands is well within the powers conferred on the Governing Body”.

The judge also did not examine the submission by the petitioner’s counsel that valuable lands had been exchanged with third parties who subsequently were able to sell these lands for huge amounts of money. The judgement stated that the Central Government, till date, has not even questioned the exchange of land done by the Auroville Foundation and that therefore, the court, based on the ipse dixit of the petitioner, cannot look at the transactions like a Doubting Thomas.

The judge, however, refused to throw out the writ petitions. This had been asked by the legal counsel of the Auroville Foundation, stating that “no one has authorised the petitioner” and that she “approached this Court only with a view to put spokes into the functioning of the Foundation”. The court rejected this contention and said:

[...] Ultimately, the Foundation is a Statutory Body under the management of the Central Government and it performs its function with funds allocated by the Central Government. Hence, if any serious complaints are made, this Court cannot shut its eyes and throw out the writ petitions on the technical plea of maintainability. Hence, this Court is not inclined to close these writ petitions on the ground of maintainability.