ORDER : Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, C.J. These petitions have been filed as public interest litigation seeking judicial intervention against private respondent, who is developing a housing project, on the allegation that this housing project is being developed on lands which are included and part of Ramsar site/wet land. 2. When W.P.No.41380 of 2025 came up for consideration before the Court, certain maps of Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority were placed before the Court to submit that the map shows that the lands which are involved in the construction project, namely S.Nos.453, 495 (Part), 496, 497 and 498, are part of Ramsar site. 3. Private respondent’s case, however, is that these survey numbers were never part of Ramsar site and vide press release dated 28.10.2025, the Ministry of Environment and Forest and State Government have clarified that the survey numbers in the petition are private patta lands as per the revenue records and not part of Pallikaranai Marsh Reserve Forest under Forest Department and since the notification of the above site as per the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules 2017 is yet to be finalised and the survey numbers mentioned in the petition are of private land, the allegations contained in the newspaper and articles are not correct. According to private respondent, this Court could not have drawn a parallel proceeding while the matter is pending before the Supreme Court, particularly when the ground truthing report is not yet submitted in the Supreme Court and ought to have dismissed the petitions. Serious objection to maintainability of petitions is taken on the submission that proceedings in these petitions are overlapping the proceedings of the Supreme Court. It is also strongly contended that issue which is directly under consideration before the Supreme Court cannot be allowed to be preempted. It is for the Supreme Court to decide, upon receipt of report, whether the disputed land is part of wet land. 4. Learned counsel for private respondent would submit that the lands on which the project is being developed are recorded as patta lands since 1935. 5. It is for the Supreme Court to decide, upon receipt of report, whether the disputed land is part of wet land. 4. Learned counsel for private respondent would submit that the lands on which the project is being developed are recorded as patta lands since 1935. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that presently, he is not in a position to make a clear and definite statement as to whether the land comprised in S.Nos.453, 495 (Part), 496, 497 and 498 is part and parcel of Ramsar site and that would be clear only when the boundary of the entire Ramsar site is identified in accordance with and following the procedure laid down in the Rules of 2017. 6. Mr.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Wetland Authority would submit that in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the exercise is going on and as soon as all the phases of exercise contemplated under the Rules are completed, appropriate report would be submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, at this stage, this Court may not proceed with the matter and await the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. As far as suo motu public interest litigation, namely W.P.No.12653 of 2017, is concerned, the said petition has been registered under the directions of the Supreme Court by order dated 03.04.2017 in the case of Anand Arya v. Union of India and others. Thereafter, again on 11.12.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the list of Ramsar sites to be sent to the High Court, including five High Courts mentioned in the order, with a request to treat the affidavit as suo motu public interest litigation, where, an amicus be appointed, if necessary, to assist the Court and ensure that the Ramsar sites within their jurisdiction are properly maintained. This observation was made in continuation of earlier order dated 03.04.2017. Therefore, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed submission of ground truthing report in the proceedings pending before it, we are of the view that we should await further directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rather than entertaining new petitions. There is considerable force in the submission that these petitions seek to draw parallel proceedings. 8. Therefore, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed submission of ground truthing report in the proceedings pending before it, we are of the view that we should await further directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rather than entertaining new petitions. There is considerable force in the submission that these petitions seek to draw parallel proceedings. 8. The issue as to whether the land in dispute in S.Nos.453, 495 (Part), 496, 497 and 498 is included in the Ramsar site would depend upon the order that may ultimately be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court upon submission of report before it. We give liberty to these petitioners to take appropriate remedy. We are of the considered view that, at this stage, the writ petitions cannot be entertained. Accordingly, they are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. W.M.P.No.48844 of 2025 seeking to implead is closed. Consequently, other interim applications are also dismissed.