State cannot deviate from Wildlife Board recommendations to reduce Sanctuary boundaries without reasoned justification and due process.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the State Government violated Section 26A(3) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, by altering the boundaries of the sanctuary without the recommendation of the National Board for Wildlife.

The court held

The Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the sanctuary's declaration and the closure of the stone-crushing units.

It also directed

However, it held that the exclusion of surplus forest area was arbitrary.

The Court directed the State Government to issue a further notification including the left-out portions of the Kappathagudda Reserve Forest within the KW Sanctuary to align with the Board’s 2019 resolution.

The Court clarified that any future alteration of these boundaries must follow the due process of law.

01Facts

The petitioners, owners of stone-crushing units on patta lands in Gadag District, challenged a Notification dated 16.05.2019 which declared 244.15 sq. km. of the Kappathagudda Reserved Forest as the Kappathagudda Wildlife Sanctuary (KW Sanctuary).

p. 7

The petitioners argued that their units now fall within the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ), effectively prohibiting their mining and crushing operations.

p. 7

Historically, the Karnataka State Board for Wildlife (the Board) had resolved in 2010 and 2019 to declare the entire 300 sq. km. area of the reserve forest as a sanctuary.

p. 9, 14

However, the State initially notified only 178 sq. km. as a "Conservation Reserve" in 2017 before issuing the 2019 impugned notification for 244.15 sq. km.

pp. 13-14

The petitioners alleged the boundaries were shifted without Mandated National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) approval and were reduced to benefit specific influential mining units.

pp. 8-9, 19

02Issues

i.1. Whether the State Government violated Section 26A(3) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, by altering the boundaries of the sanctuary without the recommendation of the National Board for Wildlife.

p. 8, 15

ii.2. Whether the impugned notification was arbitrary for excluding approximately 55 sq. km. of reserve forest despite a Board resolution to include the entire 300 sq. km.

pp. 19-20

iii.3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to an exit plan or compensation for the closure of their units within the Eco-Sensitive Zone.

p. 21

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Section 26A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which empowers the State to declare reserve forests as sanctuaries.

p. 15

Specifically, Section 26A(3) mandates that no alteration of boundaries of a declared sanctuary shall be made except on the recommendation of the National Board for Wildlife.

p. 16

The court also noted the regulatory restrictions on mining and industrial activities within Eco-Sensitive Zones notified under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

p. 21

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 Section 3

04Reasoning

Regarding the first issue, the Court found Section 26A(3) inapplicable because the impugned notification was the original declaration of the sanctuary; since no sanctuary existed prior to this, there was no "alteration" of an existing boundary requiring NBWL approval.

p. 16, 18

On the second issue, the Court observed a glaring inconsistency: while the Board’s 11th meeting unanimously resolved to declare the entire 300 sq. km. area as a sanctuary, the final notification was restricted to 244.15 sq. km. without any recorded reasoning or decision to reduce the size.

p. 14, 20

The State’s inability to provide any file or justification for this reduction led the Court to deem the exclusion of the remaining 55 sq. km. as ex facie arbitrary.

pp. 20-21

Finally, regarding compensation, the Court held that since stone crushing is a prohibited activity within the ESZ, the closure orders were valid, and the petitioners failed to demonstrate any statutory right to compensation or an "exit plan".

pp. 21-22