M/S SRI GAGANDEEP STONE CRUSHER INDUSTRIES vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- Decided on
- 04-03-2026
- 1 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 32714 OF 2024 (GM-MM-S)
C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 26096 OF 2024 (GM-MM-S)
IN W.P. No. 32714/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVAGANGA STONE CRUSHING INDUSTRIES
ST
NO.35, NO.30/41, 1 FLOOR
MADURA ESTATE
KESWAPURA VILLAGE
KESWAPURA HOBLI
HUBBALLI TALUK
DHARWAD DISTRICT - 580 023
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI SHASHANK S SHETTAR
2. SRI S.R. BELLARY
S/O LATE RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT MUTEBENNUR VILLAGE
MUTEBENNUR HOBLI
BYADAGI TALUK
HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 110
3. SRI JAGADISH M. BATTURA
S/O MAHADEVAPPA D BATTHURA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT MULUGUNDA VILLAGE
MULUGUNDA POST
GADAG TALUK
GADAG DISTRICT - 582 117
4. SRI A.J. KALKERI
S/O JANDI SAB KALKERI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
Digitally
signed by
AMBIKA H B
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
R/AT NO.1152/A
GUNDIKERI PLOT
HIREVADHATTI
MUNDARGI TALUK
GADAG DISTRICT - 582 113
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI CHANNAMALLIKARJUNA GOUDA PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE (MOEF)
INDIRA PARIYAVARAN BHAVAN
JORABHAG ROAD
ALIGANJ, NEW DELHI -110 003
2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
SECRETARIAT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF
CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL
CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS
ARANYA BHAVANA
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 560 003
4. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF
CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
AND CHIEF WILD LIFE WARDEN
ARANYA BHAVANA
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 560 003
5. THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND FOREST
SECRETARIAT
- 3 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
6. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
GADAG DISTRICT
GADAG - 583 101
7. THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER (DFO)
WILD LIFE WARDEN
KAPPATHGUDDA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY
GADAG - 583 101
8. THE DISTRICT TASK FORCE
COMMITTEE (MINES)
GADAG DISTRICT
GADAG - 583 101
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
9. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
GADAG DISTRICT
GADAG - 583 101
10. NATIONAL BOARD FOR WILDLIFE
NEW DELHI
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MEMBER SECRETARY
(IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 11.03.2025)
…RESPONDENTS
(SRI RAJASHEKAR S, CGC FOR R-1 & R-10;
SRI KIRAN V. RON, AAG A/W
SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-2 TO R-9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO MODIFY THE BOUNDARY OF
KAPPATHGUDDA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY FOR RESTRICTING TO
178 SQ.KM AS DECIDED EARLIER OR UPHOLD AND DECLARE THE
GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.FEE-291-FWL-2015 DATED 11/04/2017
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E, AS FINAL AND VALID, DECLARING
KAPPATHGUDDA CONSERAVATION RESERVE AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION IN SO FAR
- 4 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
BLOCK NO.4 OF SO-CALLED KAPPATHGUDDA WILDLIFE
SANCTUARY VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.FEE-57/FWL/2019 DATED
16/05/2019 DECLARING KAPPATHGUDDA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY
AS PER ANENXURE-G & ETC.
IN W.P. NO. 26096/2024
BETWEEN:
1. M/S SRI GAGANDEEP STONE CRUSHER INDUSTRIES
ND
2 CROSS, NANDESWAR NAGAR
KALASAPUR ROAD
GADAG
REPRASENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI SHIVANAND V PALLED
2. M/S. SRI DEVI STONE CRUSHER INDUSTRIES
M.I.G.-1, HOUSE NO.364
HUDCO COLONY, GADAG
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROPRIETOR
SRI BASAVARAJ.S RAYAPUR
3. M/S SRI ADISHAKTI STONE CRUSHER
RESIDING AT MOTEBENNUR VILLAGE
MOTEBENNUR HOBLI
BYADAGI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT
PIN CODE - 581 110
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROPRIETER
SRI VIKRAM B. BELLARY
4. M/S SRI VENKATESWAR INDUSTRIES
ND
2 CROSS, VIDYANAGAR
SHIRHATTI-VILLAGE
SHIRATTI-TALUKA
GADAG DISTRICT
REPRASENTED BY ITS
PROPRIETOR
SRI S SUDHEER REDDY
5. M/S. SRI SAI STONE CRUSHER
MAGADI-VILLAGE
SHIRHATTI-TALUKA
GADAG- DISTRICT
- 5 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROPRIETOR
SRI C. SUBBAREDDY
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI CHANNAMALLIKARJUNA GOUDA PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT
FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPT.
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
FOREST ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
3. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
HEAD OF FOREST FORCE
TH
4 FLOOR, ARANYA BHAVAN
TH
18 CROSS MALLESWARM
BENGALURU - 560 003
4. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
ND
(WILD LIFE), 2 FLOOR
ARANYA BHAVAN
TH
18 CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003
5. THE KARNATAKA WILDLIFE BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
TH
8 FLOOR, V.V. TOWER
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
6. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
(MINING SSI AND TEXTILES)
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
- 6 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
7. DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
TH
5 FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
8. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GADAG DISTRICT, GADAG - 582 101
9. NATIONAL BOARD FOR WILDLIFE
NEW DELHI
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MEMBER SECRETARY
10. THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FORESTS AND
CLIMATE CHANGE
INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN
JORBAGH ROAD
ALIGANI, NEW DELHI -111 003
(IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 11.03.2025)
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI RAJASHEKAR S, CGC FOR R-1 & R-10;
SRI KIRAN V. RON, AAG A/W
SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-2 TO R-8 &
SRI RAJASHEKAR S., CGC FOR R-9 & 10)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO MODIFY THE BOUNDARY OF
KAPPATHGUDDA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY FOR RESTRICTING TO
178 SQ.KM AS DECIDED EARLIER OR UPHOLD AND DECLARE THE
GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.FEE-291-FWL-2015 DATED 11/04/2017
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B, AS FINAL AND VALID, DECLARING
KAPPATHGUDDA CONSERVATION RESERVE AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION NO.FEE-
57/FWL/2019 DATED 16/05/2019 DECLARING KAPPATHAGUDDA
WILDLIFE SANCTUARY AS PER ANNEXURE-D & ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
- 7 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The petitioners hold licenses to operate stone-crushing
industries on patta lands located in the immediate vicinity of the
fourth block of the Kappathagudda Reserved Forest. They have
filed these petitions impugning a Notification dated 16.05.2019,
declaring the area measuring 244.15 sq. km. (24415.73 hectares)
excluding enclosures, revenue villages, patta lands and revenue
lands as on the date of publication of the notification in Gadag,
Mundaragi and Shirahatti Taluks of Gadag District as
Kappathagudda Wildlife Sanctuary [ KW Sanctuary ]. The
petitioners are aggrieved by the delineation of the boundaries of
the KW Sanctuary. Their grievance stems from the fact that their
respective units fall within the Eco-Sensitive Zone [ ESZ ] of the KW
Sanctuary. This renders it impermissible for them to carry on any
mining activities or to operate their stone-crushing units. Therefore,
the petitioners, inter alia , seek that directions be issued to modify
the boundaries of the KW Sanctuary and restrict it to 178 sq. kms.,
as decided earlier. They seek that the Notification dated
- 8 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
11.04.2017, proposing the extent of KW Sanctuary be held as final.
The petitioners also pray that directions be issued to the
respondent to prepare an exit plan/scheme for settling their rights
in respect of stone-crushing units located within 1 km. of the KW
Sanctuary. In addition to the aforesaid prayers, the petitioners in
Writ Petition No.26096/2024 also impugn the order dated
27.06.2024, issued prohibiting the operation of stone-crushing and
mining activities by the units operated by the respective petitioners.
2. Mr. G.S. Kannur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners, focused his arguments challenging the impugned
notification on the ground that the State Government had altered
the boundaries of the KW Sanctuary without obtaining permission
from the National Board for Wildlife. He submitted that the
Notification dated 11.04.2017 had restricted the area of the KW
Sanctuary to 178 sq. kms. However, the said boundaries had been
altered by the State Government without following due process of
law.
3. Mr. Kannur also contended that the impugned notification did
not conform to any decision taken by the concerned authority. He
submitted that even if the subsequent decision of the eleventh
meeting of the Karnataka State Board for Wildlife [ the Board ] was
- 9 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
accepted, the notification declaring the KW Sanctuary ought to
have declared an area of 300 sq. kms as the KW Sanctuary. He
contended that the boundaries of the KW Sanctuary had been
reduced to benefit certain mining units and for no other purpose.
PREFATORY FACTS
4. Parcels of land, aggregating about 300 sq. kms., including
the area declared as the KW Sanctuary under the impugned
notification, were declared as a reserve forest during the period
1882-1962. The forest in question comprised four blocks covering
an area of about 300 sq. kms. However, there is some controversy
in this regard. The learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the precise calculation comprising all four blocks of the reserve
forest is 282 sq. kms.
5. In a meeting held on 11.08.2010, the Board considered the
proposal submitted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
(Wildlife) and the Chief Wildlife Warden to declare an area of
approximately 300 sq. kms. of the Kappathagudda reserve forest
as a Wildlife Sanctuary. The respondents state that during the
meeting, concerns were raised regarding certain developmental
activities within those limits. Hence, a Sub-committee was
constituted to conduct public consultation and submit a report.
- 10 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
6. At the fourth meeting of the Board held on 26.07.2011, the
members of the Board expressed their unanimous view that the
matter regarding the declaration of the KW Sanctuary could not be
deferred, as such a declaration was of utmost importance for the
conservation of biodiversity. All the members resolved to declare
KW Sanctuary early.
7. The fifth meeting of the board was held on 15.12.2012. Once
again, the issue regarding declaring KW Sanctuary was discussed.
It was again suggested that the sub-committee of the Board shall
take immediate action to conduct public consultation, and, after
consultation, if the sub-committee reaches a conclusion on
constituting a sanctuary, the proposal to that effect should be sent
to the government. The respondents state that a public consultation
meeting was convened by the sub-committee under the
Chairmanship of Sri Anil Kumble on 21.02.2013. It is stated that
during the proceedings, a large section of persons supported the
proposal. A copy of the proceedings has been placed on record.
However, some persons also opposed such a declaration.
8. At the meeting of the sub-committee of the Board held on
15.03.2013, the sub-committee concluded that there was an urgent
need to protect and conserve the degraded habitat of the
- 11 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
Kappathagudda forest area, and that it would be appropriate to
expedite the declaration of the Kappathagudda forest as a wildlife
sanctuary. It is stated that despite the aforesaid conclusion, the
State Government had sent a communication dated 27.05.2014,
conveying that the proposal for declaration of the Kappathagudda
forest as a wildlife sanctuary had been dropped.
9. At the seventh meeting of the Board, held on 15.07.2014, it
was noted that the proposal had been moved by the Board’s sub-
committee to declare the KW Sanctuary. It is stated that during the
said meeting, the Additional Chief Secretary of the Forest, Ecology
and Environment Department stated that the matter would be
reconsidered after a joint inspection by the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), the Chief Wildlife Warden, and
the concerned officers. The other members of the Board accepted
the said proposal.
10. At the meeting of the sub-committee of the Board held on
09.04.2015, it was resolved that the proposed area may be notified
as a conservation reserve. The relevant extract of the said meeting
is reproduced below:
th
"I. Agenda of 4 meeting of State Board for
Wildlife
1) Kappathagudda Wildlife Sanctuary
- 12 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
Regarding the proposal for declaration of
Kappathagudda Wildlife Sanctuary, matter was
discussed and Addl. Chief Secretary, Forest, Ecology
and Environment informed that this area was visited by
him and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
(Wildlife). Based on the filed visit and interaction with
public and feedback from local people it was decided
that proposed area of Wildlife Sanctuary may be notified
as Conservation Reserve that will ensure protection of
the area. It was resolved that same may be
recommended to the State Board of Wildlife."
11. The issue was also discussed at the eighth meeting of the
Board held on 11.09.2015, and pursuant to the proceedings, the
Government of Karnataka issued a Notification dated 19.12.2015,
declaring 17,872.248 hectares of the reserve forest area as the
Kappathagudda Conservation Reserve.
12. The respondents state that, after the said notification,
representations were received from members of the public and
various organisations objecting to the said notification, inter alia , on
the ground that the mandatory procedural requirement for
consultation with local communities was not met. In view of the
above, the Board resolved to withdraw the said notification issued
under Section 36-A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 [ WPA ]
and a notification dated 19.11.2016 was issued withdrawing the
earlier notification dated 19.12.2015.
- 13 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
13. It is stated that pursuant to the ninth meeting of the Board
held on 31.08.2016, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
(Wildlife) issued directions to the officials to conduct a public
hearing without any delay. Pursuant to the said directions, the
Deputy Commissioner of Gadag District issued letter dated
07.01.2017 convening a public hearing on 16.01.2017 at
Tontadarya Kala Bhavan, Dambal Village of Mundaragi Taluk,
Gadag District. It is also affirmed on behalf of the State
Government that, prior to the public hearing, all 16 Gram
Panchayats passed unanimous resolutions supporting the proposal
to declare Kappathagudda Reserve Forest as Kappathagudda
Conservation Reserve. Thereafter, the notification dated
11.04.2017 was issued under Section 36-A of the WPA, declaring
an area of 17,872.248 hectares of reserve forest as the
Kappathagudda Conservation Reserve.
14. The said Notification dated 11.04.2017 was challenged by
way of writ petitions in this Court [W.P Nos.25212/2017 and 25733-
25740/2017 (GM-MMS)]. The said petitions were dismissed by an
order dated 31.05.2019.
15. At the eleventh meeting of the Board held on 09.11.2019, the
Board resolved that the entire 300 sq. kms. of Kappathagudda
- 14 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
Forest Area be declared as Kappathagudda Wildlife Sanctuary.
The relevant extract of the minutes of the eleventh meeting of the
Board held on 09.11.2019 is set out below:
"The Board was informed about re-notifying 178.66
Sq.kms. of Kappathagudda Reserve Forests as
"Kappathagudda Conservation Reserve" as per Section
36-A of Wildlife (Protection) Act - 1972. The Board
further deliberated on the issue and many of the
members expressed that the Status of the land at
Kappathagudda being a reserve forest is not
appropriate to constitute the Reserve Forests as a
rd
Conservation Reserve. The Board during the 3
meeting held on 11-08-2010 had proposed for declaring
the entire 300 sq.kms. of Kappathagudda Reserve
Forests as Kappathagudda Wildlife Sanctuary.
Kappathagudda Reserve Forests is unique as the
vegetation in the area has many medicinal plants and it
is worth preserving the same for eternity. All the
members unanimously suggested to declare the entire
300 sq. kms. of Kappathagudda Reserve Forest as
Kappathagudda Wildlife Sanctuary. The board resolved
in favour of proposal to declare entire 300 Sq.Kms. area
of Kappathagudda RF as Wildlife Sanctuary. Detailed
proposals with draft notification has to be submitted to
the Govt. for declaring the forests of Kappathagudda as
Wildlife Sanctuary, under Section 26-A of Wildlife
(Protection) Act-1972."
16. The State states that, pursuant to the said resolution, the
impugned notification dated 16.05.2019 was issued, declaring the
Kappathagudda Reserve Forest as the Kappathagudda Wildlife
Sanctuary.
- 15 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
ANALYSIS
17. It is apparent from the facts as narrated above that there has
been no decision to alter the boundaries of the KW Sanctuary. It is
relevant to refer to Section 26A(3) of the WPA to examine if the
same has been violated as contended on behalf of the petitioners.
Section 26A of the WPA is reproduced below:
" 26A. Declaration of area as sanctuary .—(1) When—
(a) a notification has been issued under section 18 and
the period for preferring claims has elapsed, and all
claims, if any, made in relation to any land in an area
intended to be declared as a sanctuary, have been
disposed of by the State Government; or
(b) any area comprised within any reserve forest or any
part of the territorial waters, which is considered by the
State Government to be of adequate ecological faunal
floral geomorphological, natural or zoological
significance for the purpose of protecting, propagating
or developing wild life or its environment, is to be
included in a sanctuary,
the State Government shall issue a notification
specifying the limits of the area which shall be
comprised within the sanctuary and declare that the
said area shall be a sanctuary on and from such date
as may be specified in the notification:
Provided that where any part of the territorial
waters is to be so included, prior concurrence of the
Central Government shall be obtained by the State
Government:
Provided further that the limits of the area of the
territorial waters to be included in the sanctuary shall
be determined in consultation with the Chief Naval
Hydrographer of the Central Government and after
taking adequate measures to protect the occupational
interests of the local fishermen.
- 16 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1), the right of innocent passage of any vessel or boat
through the territorial waters shall not be affected by
the notification issued under sub-section (1).
(3) No alteration of the boundaries of a sanctuary shall
be made by the State Government except on a
recommendation of the National Board.
18. The premise that the provisions of Section 26A(3) of WPA
have been violated – as earnestly contented on behalf of the
petitioners – is unfounded as the boundaries of the KW Sanctuary
have not been altered after KW Sanctuary was declared.
19. In the present case, the facts as noted above, clearly indicate
that the area spanning over 300 sq. kms. (or 288 sq. kms. as
asserted by the State) had been declared as a reserve forest.
20. Section 26A(1) of the WPA mandates that the State
Government shall issue a notification specifying the limits of the
area, which shall be comprised within a sanctuary, if it considers
the area comprising within a reserve forest to be of adequate
ecological faunal, floral, geomorphological, natural or zoological
significance for the purpose of protecting, propagating or
developing wildlife or its environment.
21. There is ample material on record which indicates that KW
Sanctuary is rich in flora and fauna. The respondent has placed on
- 17 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
record the report of the studies conducted by the Wildlife Institute
of India [ WII ] at the Kappathagudda Wildlife Sanctuary. The said
study is titled "The Study on the status, habitat and conservation of
Indian Grey wolf and associated carnivores at Kappathagudda
Wildlife Sanctuary and other forests in Gadag Division." The report
indicates that the camera trap study and field research documented
the presence of extensive wildlife in the sanctuary. The said reports
include photographic evidence of the presence of species like,
1. Leopard (Panthera pardus fusca)
2. Jungle cat (Felis chaus)
3. Stripped hyena (Hyaena hyaena)
4. Indian grey wolf (Canis lupus pallipes)
5. Golden jackal (Canis aureus)
6. Bengal fox (Vulpes bengalensis)
7. Blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra)
8. Four horned antelope (Tetracerus quadricornis)
9. Rusty-spotted cat (Prinailurus rubiginosus)
10. Asian palm civet (Paradoxurus hemaphroditus)
11. Small Indian civet (Viverricula indica)
12. Indian crested porcupine (Hystrix indica)
13. Black napedhare (Lepus nigricollis)
14. Bonnet macaque (Macaca radiate)
15. Chinkara (Gazella benettii)
16. Jackal (Canis aureus indicus)
17. Grey Langur (Semno pithecus)
18. Indian grey mongoose (Urvae edwardsii)
19. Spotted Deer (Axis axis)
20. Wild Pig (Sus scrofa)
22. The minutes of the meeting of the Board clearly indicates
that the members are unanimous in their opinion that the area in
question is rich in flora and fauna and requires to be protected.
- 18 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
23. The petitioners' contention that, since only 178.66 sq. kms.
were initially declared as a conservation reserve, the impugned
notification altered the boundaries of the KW Sanctuary is
erroneous. The impugned notification declared the KW sanctuary
for the first time; therefore, the contention that it altered the
boundary of a declared sanctuary is without any basis. As noted
above, the Board had, as early as in its third meeting held on
11.08.2010, considered the proposal for declaring approximately
300 sq. kms. of the Kappathagudda forest area as a wildlife
sanctuary.
24. Subsequently, a part of the said forests was declared as a
conservation reserve. There was no impediment for the State
Government to declare the area as a wildlife sanctuary.
25. The State has also filed three coloured maps indicating area
of 178.8 sq. kms. of the reserve forest, which had been declared as
Kappathagudda Conservation Reserve. The KW Sanctuary
includes the entire 178.8 sq. kms. area of the Kappathagudda
Conservation Reserve and part of the remaining reserve forests. In
other words, no part of the area that was declared as
Kappathagudda Conservation Reserve was excluded from the
boundaries of the KW Sanctuary. However, certain pockets of
- 19 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
reserve forest, which were not included within the Kappathagudda
Conservation Reserve, were also included as a part of the KW
Sanctuary.
26. Inexplicably, some parts of the Kappathagudda reserve
forest are excluded from the area of the KW Sanctuary. There is no
ambiguity in the resolution dated 09.01.2019 passed by the Board,
where the entire 300 sq. kms. of the reserve forest is declared as a
wildlife sanctuary. It is affirmed on behalf of the State that the
impugned notification was issued pursuant to the decision of the
eleventh meeting of the Board under the Chairmanship of the
Hon'ble Chief Minister. However, the impugned notification
declares the only area of 24415.73 hectares (244.15 sq. kms.) as
KW Sanctuary. This raises a question as to why approximately 55
sq. kms. of reserve forest was not declared as a wildlife sanctuary.
27. Although no relief to the effect of including the left out
portions of the Kappathagudda forests in the KW Sanctuary is
sought, this court had invited the counsel to advance submissions
in this regard.
28. The petitioners contend that the same has been done to
benefit a few units which are owned by influential persons. In the
- 20 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
aforesaid context, we also directed the State to indicate the
reasons for reducing the area of the KW Sanctuary in the
impugned notification.
29. Mr. Kiran Ron, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly
states that no document is available regarding any decision to
reduce the area of the KW Sanctuary. He, however, states that
there is an error in recording the extent of Kappathagudda forest as
300 sq. kms. He submits that the aggregate area of the various
notifications declaring reserve forests in Blocks I to IV of the region
is approximately 288 sq. kms. He fairly states that although the
decision of the Board was to declare the entire said area of reserve
forest as KW Sanctuary, the notification for inexplicable reasons
had reduced the area to 244.15 sq. kms. He states that there is
neither any decision nor any file which contains any information as
to why the impugned notification had confined the KW Sanctuary to
an area of 244.15 sq. kms. Importantly, he also did not oppose the
issuance of any directions to that effect
30. Once the Board has taken a decision to declare the entire
area of the reserve forest as KW Sanctuary and the State
Government has acted upon the decision, in the absence of any
reasoned decision restricting the area of the KW Sanctuary, the
- 21 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
impugned notification confining the area of the KW Sanctuary
contrary to the Board’s decision, is ex facie arbitrary.
31. It is thus necessary for the respondent - State Government to
issue a notification further including the left-out portions of the
Kappathagudda Reserve Forest within the area of the KW
Sanctuary.
32. Insofar as the challenge to the various orders directing
closure of the stone crushing activities is concerned, the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly stated that
carrying on stone crushing and mining activities is impermissible
within the ESZ of the sanctuary. There is no dispute that the
petitioners' units fall within ESZ as notified under the notification
dated 04.06.2025 issued under Section 3 of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986. Thus, the petitioners’ stone crushing units
cannot be permitted to operate within the ESZ.
33. However, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that
the petitioners had made investments in the units that were
required to be compensated under an appropriate exit plan.
However, he is unable to point out any statutory framework that
entitles the petitioners to any compensation. It is also material to
- 22 -
WP No. 32714 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26096 of 2024
note that not all activities within the ESZ are proscribed. Therefore,
the petitioners can utilise any land owned by them for permissible
purposes.
34. In view of the above, the present petitions are dismissed.
However, the respondents are directed to issue a further
notification, including the left-out areas of the Kappathagudda
Reserve Forest as a part of the KW Sanctuary, in accordance with
the resolution passed at the eleventh meeting of the Board held on
09.01.2019. However, we clarify that if the State is of the view that
it is necessary or expedient to exclude a part of the area from the
boundaries of the KW Sanctuary, this order will not preclude the
State Government to take a decision for altering the boundaries of
the KW Sanctuary (which includes the left out portions of the
reserve forest), albeit in accordance with the law.
35. The pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed
of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
AHB