State Government cannot arbitrarily reduce Wildlife Sanctuary boundaries contrary to the State Board for Wildlife's resolution.

The petitioners operate stone-crushing units on private (patta) lands near the Kappathagudda Reserved Forest.

Initially, the State Forest Board proposed 300 sq. km. as a Wildlife Sanctuary in 2010.

Following various administrative shifts, 178.72 sq. km. was notified as a "Conservation Reserve" in 2017.

However, in its 11th meeting on 09.01.2019, the Karnataka State Board for Wildlife resolved to declare the entire 300 sq. km. area as a Wildlife Sanctuary.

Subsequently, the State issued the impugned Notification dated 16.05.2019, declaring 244.15 sq. km. as the Kappathagudda Wildlife Sanctuary (KWS).

The petitioners challenged this notification because their units now fall within the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ), prohibiting their mining and crushing operations.

They alleged the boundaries were altered without National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) approval and sought an exit plan/compensation.

1. Whether the impugned notification altered the boundaries of a sanctuary in violation of Section 26A(3) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, by failing to obtain a recommendation from the National Board for Wildlife.

2. Whether the State Government acted arbitrarily by notifying only 244.15 sq. km. as a sanctuary despite the State Board's resolution to include the entire 300 sq. km. reserve forest area.

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to an exit scheme or compensation for the prohibition of their industries within the ESZ.

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

Specifically, Section 26A(3) mandates that no "alteration of boundaries" of an existing sanctuary can occur without the recommendation of the National Board for Wildlife.

The Court also referenced Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, under which Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) are notified to regulate or prohibit industrial activities near protected areas.

The Court rejected the petitioners' argument regarding Section 26A(3), noting that since this was the original declaration of the sanctuary, there were no pre-existing sanctuary boundaries to "alter"; thus, NBWL recommendation was not a prerequisite for the initial notification.

Regarding the reduction of the area from the proposed 300 sq. km. to 244.15 sq. km., the Court found the State's action "ex facie arbitrary" because the State Board had unanimously resolved to protect the entire 300 sq. km. due to its medicinal flora and wildlife, and the State could provide no reasoned decision or file noting to justify the exclusion of ~55 sq. km.

On the issue of the stone crushers, the Court observed that since the units fall within the legally notified ESZ, their operation is strictly prohibited by law.

The demand for compensation was denied as the petitioners failed to provide any statutory framework granting a right to compensation for regulatory restrictions on land use within an ESZ.

However, it held the exclusion of the remaining reserve forest area from the sanctuary notification to be arbitrary.

The Court directed the State Government to issue a further notification including the left-out portions of the Kappathagudda Reserve Forest within the KWS, as per the Board's 2019 resolution.

The Court clarified that the State remains at liberty to later alter boundaries only if it follows the due process of law.