Sri. Rana George vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2025

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Rana George vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2025

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

Reserved on : 26.04.2025
Pronounced on : 02.06.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.30542 OF 2024 (GM - FOR)

BETWEEN:

SRI RANA GEORGE
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O K J GEORGE,
RESIDING AT PENT HOUSE,
7TH FLOOR, ST. ANDREWS BUILDING,
INTER MEDIATE RING ROAD, DOMLUR,
BENGALURU - 560 071.
... PETITIONER
Digitally signed (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
by NAGAVENI SRI MRINAL KUTTAPPA, ADVOCATE)

Location: High AND:
Court of
Karnataka 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT,
2

ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.

3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.

4. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
HEDIYAL SUB-DIVISION, HEDIYAL,
NANJANGUD TALUK,
MYSURU - 571 316.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A
WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
SETTING ASIDE THE DIRECTION DATED 01.03.2024 VIDE BEARING
NO.PRAMUAASAM(VAG/D/CR-47/2020-21) ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT (HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D) RESTRICTING
ACCESS TO THE FOREST ROAD WITHIN THE NUGU WILDLIFE
SANCTUARY, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND
ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 26.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an

order/direction dated 01-03-2024, by which access to petitioner's

property is restricted to certain hours. A consequential direction by

issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus is sought for

unrestricted access to his property within the forest road.

2. Heard Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned senior counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Sri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

The subject land bearing Sy. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 26, 32 and 33 of

Shambugowdanahalli and Lakkasoge Villages, Sargur Hobli, H.D.

Kote Taluk, Mysore is granted to certain persons between 1966 and

1972. The original grantees died and legal heirs of the grantees sell

the subject property between 2010 and 2021 to the petitioner.

Thus, the petitioner becomes the owner of the property pursuant to
4

those registered sale deeds. The sale deeds are also appended to

the petition. The petitioner being a private land owner submits a

representation for the purpose of access to his property. Access is

granted initially and the access later comes to be modified by the

impugned direction that the petitioner can enter his property only

between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. It is this restricted entry to the

petitioner's property that has driven the petitioner to this Court in

the subject petition.

4. The learned senior counsel Sri Vikram Huilgol appearing for

the petitioner submits that the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 ('the

Act' for short) provides exception to restriction on entry only in

terms of Section 27 of the Act. The learned senior counsel would

submit that Section 27(1)(c) provides an exception to the

restriction on entry to any sanctuary for persons with immovable

property within sanctuary limits with the conditions of permit

granted under Section 28. The entry is granted, but it is restricted

for particular timings. This restriction infringes his fundamental

right of movement in the property owned by him for the last 25

years. The learned senior counsel submits that there is no
5

permanent access to the immovable property in question, except

through the forest land. Alternate access does exist which cannot

be used as water level in Nugu Reservoir rises beyond 100 feet. He

would submit that the State has granted access, but has restricted

it, which is contrary to law.

5. Per contra, Sri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court

Government Pleader would vehemently refute the submissions by

taking this Court through the documents appended to the

objections to contend that the petitioner has no right to even urge

that he should be permitted access in the forest area. It is his

submission that if the petitioner has purchased a property in the

forest area, he will have to abide by the Rules under the statute,

which clearly prohibits entry into any place of the forest. He would

further contend that in identical cases the Apex Court has clearly

held that the forest roads cannot be permitted to be used by private

persons. The learned High Court Government Pleader would further

take this court through statement of objections to contend that the

title of the property is itself erroneous as the grant that is made in

favour of the vendors of the property is itself cancelled later.
6

Contending thus, the learned High Court Government Pleader would

submit that no fault can be found to the restricted entry of the

petitioner.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would

join the issue in refuting the submissions of the learned High Court

Government Pleader. He would contend that the State cannot now

go back and make submissions with regard to the title of the

property.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

8. The issue in the lis is in a narrow compass as to whether

Section 27 of the Act would permit unhindered access to the

property of the petitioner.

9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The subject

land is granted between the years 1966 and 1972. The original
7

grantees who had by then died, the legal heirs of the original

grantees are said to have sold the land to the petitioner way back in

the year 2010. The RTCs are appended to the petition and the

RTCs depict the petitioner to be the owner of the property. The

property is situated within the boundaries of Nugu Wild Life

Sanctuary. On 29-08-2022 a show cause notice comes to be issued

to the petitioner stating that movement of jeeps in the forest road

which was leading to the property of the petitioner was

objectionable. The show cause reads as follows:

" ಾರಣ ೇ ೋ ೕ

ಷಯ: ಲಕ ೋ ೆ ಾ ಮದ ಸ ೇ ನಂಬ 33ರ ಜ!ೕ"ನ#$ %ೕ& 'ಾಗು ಇತ,ೆ
ಾಹನಗಳ/ ನುಗು ವನ1%ೕ ಅರಣ1 ಪ 4ೇಶ4ೊಳ ೆ ಓ7ಾಡು9:ರುವ ಬ ೆ;.

ಉ=ೆ$ೕಖ: 1) ? ಾಂಕ: 02-08-2022 ರಂದು ಪ @ಾ ಾA ?ನ ಪ9 ೆಯ#$ ಪ ಕಟ ೊಂಡ
ಅರಣ1 4ಾC ಪ Dಾ
"ಅ ೆ Eಾತ " FೕG ೆಯ ಕುCತು.

2) Eಾನ1 ಅರಣ1 ಸಂರHIಾJ ಾCಗಳ/ 'ಾಗೂ Kೇತ "4ೇ ಶಕರು,
ಬಂLೕಪMರ ಹು# Nೕಜ ೆ Dಾಗ, ಬಂLೕಪMರ ರವರ ಕOೇC ಪತ ಸಂPೆ1:
ಎ3/RಬSಂ?/ಪ/¸À C¸ÀA/¹Dgï-13/2022-23 ? ಾಂಕ : 25-08-2022.

*****

ಈ Uೕಲ ಂಡ ಷಯ ೆ ಸಂಬಂJRದಂVೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ "ಮ ೆ 9 ಸುವM4ೇ ೆAದ,ೆ,
ಬಂLೕಪMರ ಹು# ಸಂರWತ ಪ 4ೇಶ, 'ೆLXಾಲ ಉಪ- Dಾಗದ ನುಗು ವನ1%ೕ ವಲಯದ ಾ1Y:ಯ#$ನ
ಲHZIಾಪMರ ರWVಾರಣ1 ಾ1Y:ಯ ಲಕ ೋ ೆ ಾ ಮದ ಸ ೆ ನಂಬ 33 ರ#$ "ಮ[ ಜ!ೕ"ದು\ "ೕವM
ಮತು: "ಮ[ ೆಲಸ ಾರರು ಮ]ೆ ಾಲದ#$ ನುಗು ^"_ೕರು ಭ9 Xಾದ ಸಮಯದ#$ ನುಗು ವನ1%ೕ
ವಲಯದ ಇ=ಾPೆ ರ ೆ:ಗಳ#$ ಓ7ಾಡು9:ರುವMದು ಈ ೆಳಸ^4ಾರC ೆ 9 ದು ಬಂ?ರುತ:4ೆ.
8

ಮುಂದುವ,ೆದು, ? ಾಂಕ 23-08-2022 ರಂದು ಪ @ಾ ಾA ?ನಪ9 ೆಯ#$ ಪ Dಾ ಗ ೆ
Eಾತ ಅರಣ1ದ ಒಳಗ7ೆ ಓ7ಾಡಲು ಅನುಮ9 "ೕಡು9:ರುವMವ ಬ ೆ; FೕG ೆ ಪ ಕಟ ೊಂLದು\, ಇದCಂದ
ಾವ ಜ"ಕರು ಆ ೊ ೕಶ ವ1ಕ:ಪLRರುVಾ:,ೆ. ಇಂತಹ ಸಮ ೆ1ಗ ಂದ ನುಗು ವನ1%ೕ ವಲಯದ
ಆಡ Vಾತ[ಕ ^ತದೃGdeಂದ ಕಷd ಾಗು9:ದು\, ಲಕ ೋ ೆ ಾ ಮದ ಸ ೆ ನಂಬ -33 ರ ಜ!ೕ" ೆ
ಅರಣ1 ಇ=ಾPೆಯ ರ ೆ:ಯನು_ ಉಪNೕfR ೊಂಡು ಇನೂ_ ಮುಂ4ೆ ಓ7ಾಡgೇ ಾದ,ೆ
Uೕ=ಾJ ಾCಗ ಂದ ಅನುಮ9 ಪ7ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಓ7ಾಡಲು ಸೂhR4ೆ. 'ಾಗು ಸದC ಸ ೇ ನಂಬ
33ರ ಜ!ೕ" ೆ ಸಂಬಂJRದ 4ಾಖ=ಾ9ಗಳ/ 'ಾಗು ಇ"_ತ,ೆ 4ಾಖ=ಾ9ಗಳನು_ ಈ ೆಳ ಸ^4ಾರರ
ಕOೇC ೆ ಸ#$ಸಲು ಸೂhR4ೆ. ಒಂದು ೇ]ೆ "ೕವM ಅನುಮ9 ಪತ "ೕಡ4ೇ ಓ7ಾಡುವMದು ಈ
ೆಳಸ^4ಾರC ೆ 9 ದು ಬಂದ#$ "ಮ[ Uೕ=ೆ ವನ1%ೕ ಸಂರHIಾ ಾi\ 1972ರ ಪ ಾರ ಾನೂನು
CೕVಾ1 ಕ ಮ ೈ ೊಳk=ಾಗುವM4ೆಂದು 9 ಯುವMದು

¸À»/-
ಸ'ಾಯಕ ಅರಣ1 ಸಂರHIಾJ ಾC
'ೆLXಾಲ ಉಪ- Dಾಗ, 'ೆLXಾಲ"

The petitioner replies to the said notice quoting Section 27 of the

Act which permits usage of the property. The reply to the notice

reads as follows:

"2nd September 2022
By Hard E-Mail & Registered Post
To,
The Assistant Conservator of Forests,
Hediyal Sub-Division,
Hediyal
Nanjangud Taluk,
Mysore District 571316

Email: [email protected]

Ref: Show Cause Notice dated 29th August 2022 (the Notice)

Sub: Reply to the Notice
9

Respected Sir/Madam,

The undersigned has been placed in possession of the
captioned Notice which, inter alia, sets out:

a. The publication of certain adverse newspaper
articles pertaining to the undersigned's private
property within the Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary;

b. A direction to the undersigned to seek
permission, from your good office, in order to
enable him, use of and access to the
road/pathway leading to the undersigned's
private property at Survey No.33 of Lakkasoge
Village, Sargur Taluk; without which permission
such use of and access to the road/pathway to
the undersigned's private property within the
Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary is purportedly violative of
the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (the Act); and

c. A direction to the undersigned to produce, before
your good office, all relevant documents
pertaining to the undersigned's private property
as referred to above.

At the outset, the undersigned respectfully draws your
good office's attention to Section 27 (1) (c) of the Act which is
excerpted below for ease of reference:

"27. Restriction on entry in sanctuary' (1) No person
other than,-...

shall enter or reside in the sanctuary, except under
and in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted
under section 28..."

It is an undisputed fact that the undersigned is the
owner of immovable property within the Nugu Wildlife
Sanctuary. As such, the undersigned's entry to his private
property through such road/pathway in the Nugu Wildlife
10

Sanctuary is squarely protected by the terms of Section
27 (1) (c) of the Act as referred to above.

This being the case, the undersigned is puzzled by the
insistence displayed by your good office to obtain permission
that may enable his ingress and egress to and from his private
property when, indisputably, such permission is only to be
sought by such persons to whom the protection under Section
27 of the Act is inapplicable.

While the undersigned is unsure of the exact motive
behind any adverse newspaper publications, given that his
ingress and egress, to and from his private property within the
Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary is as per law, it is evident that such
publications are intended to serve no purpose other than to stir
public opinion against the undersigned and malign his
unblemished reputation.

A perusal of the Notice issued by your good office
fails to indicate any violation of any law, let alone the
provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
Regardless, the undersigned is ready and willing to place
on record all relevant title documents which demonstrate
his bona fide ownership and use of the immovable
property situated within the Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary.

You are requested to kindly grant a personal audience to
the undersigned or his authorized representative so that any
misapprehension held by your good office may be assuaged. In
the meanwhile, your good office is requested to desist from
undertaking any measure which may result in unwarranted
litigation.

The undersigned looks forward to hearing from you and
requests your good office, in light of the above, to withdraw the
captioned Notice.

Sincerely,

Sd/-
Rana George"
(Emphasis added)
11

The notice leads to passing of an order. The order is grant of

permission to access the land through the forest road. The order

dated 01-03-2024 reads as follows:

"ಇವC ೆ:

ಅರಣ1 ಸಂರHIಾJ ಾC ಮತು: Kೇತ "4ೇ ಶಕರು,
ಬಂLೕಪMರ ಹು# ಸಂರWತ ಪ 4ೇಶ,
ಬಂLೕಪMರ.

ಷಯ: Grant of permission to use existing road in wildlife
areas to access private property in the enclosure-reg

ಉ=ೆ$ೕಖ: 1 F ೕ ,ಾIಾ @ಾn , ರವರ ಮನ ? ಾಂಕ: 31.08.2020

2 ಅಪರ ಪ oಾನ ಮುಖ1 ಅರಣ1 ಸಂರHIಾJ ಾC (ಹು# Nೕಜ ೆ), Uೖಸೂರು
ರವರ ಪತ ಸಂPೆ1: ಎ . .Y/=ಾ1ಂp/%ಎq 2299/2021-22 ? ಾಂಕ:
17.02.2022

3 ಅಪರ ಪ oಾನ ಮುಖ1 ಅರಣ1 ಸಂರHIಾJ ಾC (ವನ1%ೕ ), gೆಂಗಳrರು ರವರ
ಸsಳ ಪCFೕಲ ಾ ವರ? ? ಾಂಕ: 29.02.2024

*****
Uೕಲ ಂಡ ಷಯ ೆ ಸಂಬಂJRದಂVೆ, F ೕ ,ಾIಾ @ಾn , gೆಂಗಳrರು ರವರ ಉ=ೆ$ೕಖ (1)ರ
ಮನ ಯ#$ Uೖಸೂರು %=ೆ$, ಸರಗೂರು Vಾಲೂ$ಕು, ಲಕ ೋ ೆ ಾ ಮದ ಸ ೆ ನಂ. 33 ರ#$ರುವ ತಮ[
ಒ7ೆತನದ ಜ!ೕ" ೆ ಮ]ೆ ಾಲದ#$ ನುಗು ^"_ೕCನ#$ 'ೋಗಲು ಾಧ1 ಾಗ4ೇ ಇರುವMದCಂದ ಅರಣ1
ಪ 4ೇಶದ ಗL ,ೇPೆಯ#$ರುವ ರ ೆ:ಯನು_ ಉಪNೕfR ೊಳkಲು ವನ1%ೕ (ಸಂರHIೆ) ಾi\, 1972ರ
ೆHv 27ರನwಯ ಅನುಮ9 "ೕಡುವಂVೆ ೋCರುVಾ:,ೆ.

ಮುಂದುವ,ೆದು, ಅಪರ ಪ oಾನ ಮುಖ1 ಅರಣ1 ಸಂರHIಾJ ಾC (ಹು# Nೕಜ ೆ), Uೖಸೂರು:
ರವರ ಉ=ೆ$ೕಖ (2)ರ ಪತ ದ#$ ನುಗು ವನ1%ೕ oಾಮದ ಾ1Y:ಯ#$ರುವ ಲHZIಾಪMರ ರWVಾರಣ1ದ
ಅJಸೂಚ ೆಯ#$ ಲಕ ೋ ೆ ಾಮ ೆ ೇCದ ಜ!ೕನುಗ ೆ 'ಾದು 'ೋಗುವMದ ಾ f ಎರಡು
ರ ೆ:ಗ ದು\, ಒಂದು, ನುಗು ^"_ೕCನ ಕ7ೆeಂದ ಮVೊ:ಂದು ವನ1oಾಮದ ಲHZIಾಪMರ ,ಾಜ1 !ೕಸಲು
12

ಅರಣ1 ಪ 4ೇಶದ ಒಳಗ7ೆeಂದ ಇದು\, ನುಗು ಜ=ಾಶಯದ "ೕCನ ಮಟdವM 100 ಅLfಂತ 'ೆಚುy ಇ4ಾ\ಗ,
^"_ೕCನ#$ರುವ ರ ೆ:ಯು ಓ7ಾಡಲು ಾಧ1 ಾಗುವM?ಲ$ ೆಂದು ವರ? ಸ#$RರುVಾ:,ೆ.

ಮುಂದುವ,ೆದು, ಅಪರ ಪ oಾನ ಮುಖ1 ಅರಣ1 ಸಂರHIಾJ ಾC (ವನ1%ೕ ),gೆಂಗಳrರು
ರವರ ಉ=ೆ$ೕಖ (3)ರ ಸsಳ ಪCFೕಲ ಾ ವರ?ಯ#$ ಸರಗೂರು Vಾಲೂ$ಕು, ಲಕ ೋ ೆ ಾ ಮದ ಸ ೇ
ನಂ. 1 ಮತು: 33 'ಾಗೂ ಶಂಭು ೌಡನ{ಾಳ1 ಾ ಮದ ಸ ೇ ನಂ. 26ರ#$ F ೕ ,ಾIಾ @ಾn ,
gೆಂಗಳrರು ರವರ ಒ7ೆತನದ ಕಂ4ಾಯ 4ಾಖ=ೆಗಳನು_ ಪCFೕಸ=ಾf, ಸದCಯವರು ಆR:ಯ Uೕ=ೆ
ಪCಪ|ಣ ಹಕ ನು_ 'ೊಂ?ರುವ Eಾ#ೕಕ,ಾfರುVಾ:,ೆ. ಮುಂದುವ,ೆದು, ಸದC ಜ!ೕನುಗಳ Eಾ#ಕರು
ನುಗು ^"_ೕCನ ಮಟd ಕLU ಇ4ಾ\ಗ, ನುಗು ಜ=ಾಶಯದ ^"_ೕCನ#$ರುವ ರ ೆ:ಯನು_
ಉಪNೕfಸು9:ದು\, ನುಗು ಜ=ಾಶಯದ "ೕCನ ಮಟd ಪ|ಣ ೊಂ7ಾಗ ಸದCಯವರ ಜ!ೕನುಗ ೆ
'ೋಗಲು ನುಗು ವಲಯ ಅರIಾ1J ಾCಗಳ ಕ}ೇCಯ ಮುಂgಾಗದ#$ರುವ ಲHZIಾಪMರ ,ಾಜ1 !ೕಸಲು
ಅರಣ1 ಪ 4ೇಶದ#$ರುವ ರ ೆ:ಯನು_ ಉಪNೕfಸಲು ಅನುಮ9 ೋCರುVಾ:,ೆ. ಮುಂದುವ,ೆದು ನುಗು
ಜ=ಾಶಯದ ^"_ೕCನ#$ರುವ ರ ೆ:ಯು ಮುಳ/ಗ7ೆಯ4ಾಗ Eಾತ ಷರ9: ೊಳಪಟುd ವನ1oಾಮದ
ಲHZIಾಪMರ ,ಾಜ1 !ೕಸಲು ಅರಣ1 ಪ 4ೇಶದ ಒಳಗಡ ಇರುವ ರ ೆ:ಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಸದCಯವರ ಜ!ೕ" ೆ
'ೋಗಲು ಅನುಮ9 "ೕಡಬಹು4ೆಂದು F~ಾರಸು• EಾLರುVಾ:,ೆ.

ಅಲ$4ೇ, ವನ1%ೕ (ಸಂರHIಾ) ಾi\, 1972 ೆHv 27 ರ#$ Restriction on entry
in sanctuary-27 (1) (C) No person other than- a person who has any
right over immovable property within the limits of the sanctuary ಎಂದು
ನಮೂ?ಸ=ಾf4ೆ.

ಆದುದCಂದ, F ೕ ,ಾIಾ @ಾn , gೆಂಗಳrರು ರವರು ಸರಗೂರು Vಾಲೂ$ಕು, ಲಕ ೋ ೆ
ಾ ಮದ ಸ ೇ ನಂ. 1 ಮತು: 33 'ಾಗೂ ಶಂಭು ೌಡನ{ಾಳ1 ಾ ಮದ ಸ ೇ ನಂ. 26ರ#$ ಇರುವ
ಆR:ಯ Uೕ=ೆ ಪCಪ|ಣ ಹಕ ನು_ 'ೊಂ?ರುವ Eಾ#ೕಕ,ಾfದು\, ಸದCಯವರು ಮತು: ಜ!ೕ"ನ#$
ೆಲಸ "ವ ^ಸುವ ಕೂ# ಾ! ಕರು 'ಾಗೂ ಪ ಾ:Yತ ಎv ಕೂ ಸ ನ#$ ಸw9:ನ Eಾ#ೕಕತw
'ೊಂ?ರುವ ಎ=ಾ$ ವ1€:ಗಳ/ ನುಗು ಜ=ಾಶಯದ ^"_ೕCನ#$ರುವ ರ ೆ:ಯು ಮುಳ/ಗ7ೆಯ4ಾಗ Eಾತ ಈ
ೆಳಕಂಡ ಷರ9: ೊಳಪಟುd ವನ1%ೕ (ಸಂರHIೆ) ಾi\, 1972 ೆHv 27 (1) (C)ರನwಯ ನುಗು ವಲಯ
ಅರIಾ1J ಾCಗಳ ಕ}ೇCಯ ಬ ಇರುವ ರ ೆ:ಯ ಮೂಲಕ ನುಗು ವನ1oಾಮದ ಲHZIಾಪMರ ,ಾಜ1
!ೕಸಲು ಅರಣ1 ಪ 4ೇಶದ ಗLಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಸದCಯವರ ಜ!ೕ" ೆ 'ೋಗಲು
ಉಪNೕfಸಬಹು4ಾfರುತ:4ೆ.

1. ಆR: Eಾ#ೕಕರು ವನ1{ಾ Aಗಳ/ ಮತು: ಅವರ ಉ4ೊ1ೕfಗಳ ಸುರHVೆ ೆ ಅಗತ1.
ಅಗತ1
ೊಳ/kವMದು ರ ೆ:ಯನು_ ಹಗ#ನ ೇ]ೆಯ#$ gೆ UÉÎ, 0600 Cಂದ ಸಂ@ೆ 0600
ಕ ಮ ೈ ೊಳ/kವMದು,
ರವ,ೆ ೆ Eಾತ ಬಳಸುವMದು.
ಬಳಸುವMದು
13

2. ತುತು ಸಂದಭ ಗಳ#$ Eಾತ Uೕ#ನ ಸಮಯವನು_ !ೕCದ ಪ Xಾಣ ಾ f ವಲಯ
ಅರIಾ1J ಾCಗಳ ಅನುಮ9ಯನು_ Vೆ ೆದು ೊಳkgೇ ಾಗುತ:4ೆ.

3. ಆR:ಯನು_ ಾAಜ1 ಉ4ೆ\ೕಶ ಾ f ಬಳಸುವಂ9ಲ$.

4. ರ ೆ:ಯನು_ ಬಳಸು ಾಗ ವನ1{ಾ Aಗ ೆ 'ಾಗೂ ವನ1{ಾ Aಗಳ ಆ ಾಸಸsಳ ೆ
XಾವM4ೇ Vೊಂದ,ೆ ಉಂಟುEಾಡgಾರದು.

5. ಈ ರ ೆ:ಯನು_ ಬಳಸು ಾಗ ಾಹನದ ೇಗವM ಗCಷƒ 30 kmph ೆ
Rೕ!ತ ಾfರುವMದು. XಾವM4ೇ 'ಾv ಅಥ ಾ ಇತರ ಶಬ\ಗಳನು_
ಉಂಟುEಾಡುವಂ9ಲ$.

6. ಅನುಮ9ಸ=ಾದ ರ ೆ:ಗಳನು_ ನKೆಯ#$ ಗುರು9ಸ=ಾf4ೆ ಮತು: ನKೆಯ#$ ಗುರು9ಸ=ಾದ
ರ ೆ:ಗಳನು_ Eಾತ ಬಳಸgೇಕು.

7. ಅನJಕೃತ ವ1€:ಗಳ/ ಅಭXಾರಣ1ವನು_ ಪ ೇFಸುವMದನು_ ತ7ೆಯಲು, ಕೂ# ಾ! ಕರ
ವರಗಳನು_ ನುಗು ವಲಯ ಅರIಾ1J ಾCಗಳ ಕ}ೇCಯ#$ ೋಂ4ಾeR, ಜ!ೕ"ನ
Eಾ#ೕಕ,ೊಂ? ೆ, ಸದC ಜ!ೕ"ನ#$ ೆಲಸ "ವ ^ಸುವ ಕೂ# ಾ! ಕರು Uೕ#ನ
ಸಮಯದ#$ ಪ XಾAಸಬಹು4ಾfರುತ:4ೆ.

¸À»/-
ಪ oಾನ ಮುಖ1 ಅರಣ1 ಸಂರHIಾJ ಾC (ವನ1%ೕ )
ಮತು: ಮುಖ1 ವನ1%ೕ ಪC{ಾಲಕರು,
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ, gೆಂಗಳrರು."

(Emphasis added)

The order quoting Section 27(1)(c) of the Act permits usage of the

property between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. If they are in by 6 p.m. they

should come out only by 6 a.m. next day. Section 27 of the Act

which forms the fulcrum of the lis reads as follows:
14

"27. Restriction on entry in sanctuary.--(1) No person
other than,--

(a) a public servant on duty,

(b) a person who has been permitted by the Chief Wild
Life Warden or the authorised officer to reside
within the limits of the sanctuary,

(d) a person passing through the sanctuary along a
public highway, and

(e) the dependants of the person referred to in clause
(a), clause (b) or clause (c),

shall enter or reside in the sanctuary, except under and in
accordance with the conditions of a permit granted under
section 28.

(2) Every person shall, so long, as he resides in the
sanctuary, be bound--

(a) to prevent the commission, in the sanctuary, of an
offence against this Act;

(b) where there is reason to believe that any such
offence against this Act has been committed in
such sanctuary, to help in discovering and arresting
the offender;

(c) to report the death of any wild animal and to
safeguard its remains until the Chief Wild Life
Warden or the authorised officer takes charge
thereof;

(d) to extinguish any fire in such sanctuary of which he
has knowledge or information and to prevent from
spreading, by any lawful means in his power, any
15

fire within the vicinity of such sanctuary of which
he has knowledge or information; and

(e) to assist any forest officer, Chief Wild Life. Warden,
Wild Life Warden or police officer demanding his aid
for preventing the commission of any offence
against this Act or in the investigation of any such
offence.

(3) No person shall, with intent to cause damage to any
boundary-mark of a sanctuary or to cause wrongful gain as
defined in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), alter,
destroy, move or deface such boundary-mark.

(4) No person shall tease or molest any wild animal or
litter the grounds of sanctuary."

(Emphasis supplied)

Section 27(1) mandates that no person shall enter or reside

in a sanctuary other than a public servant on duty or a person who

has been permitted by the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorized

officer to reside in the sanctuary. Sub-clause (c) permits a person

who has any right over immovable property within the limits of the

sanctuary to enter and reside in the sanctuary, except under an

order in accordance with the conditions of permit granted under

Section 28. The afore-quoted is the order. Restrictive usage of the

path between the hours as indicated in the order, is undoubtedly

contrary to Section 27(c) of the Act. A division bench of the High

Court of Madras in a judgment rendered in the case of STATE OF
16

TAMIL NADU VS. NATESAN AGENCIES (PLANTATIONS)1, has

held as follows:

"29. The provisions contained in Section 27(1)
and 27(2), which were part of the original Act, indicate
only certain restrictions on entry in the sanctuary.
Section 27(1)(c) does not impose any restriction on a
person who has any right over any immovable
property within the limits of the sanctuary to enter or
reside in the sanctuary. Only the persons, who do not
come within the category indicated in Section 27(1)(a)
to (e), are required to obtain a permit as contemplated
in Section 28 to enter or reside in a sanctuary.
However, no such permit was required for a person
who has any right over the immovable property within
the limits of the sanctuary. He can exercise his normal
right available, save and except certain restrictions
which are contemplated. But, there appears to be no
provision prohibiting an owner of a land exercising his
right over such land. This was the position before the
Act was amended and continues to be so even after
amendment. However, under the unamended provisions,
the Collector was either required to exclude such land from
the limits of the proposed sanctuary or proceed to acquire
such land or right. It is obvious that until such land was
acquired, the owner could more or less exercise all his rights.
Under the amended provision a third alternative is
contemplated under Section 24(2)(c) to allow the
continuance of such right.
(Emphasis supplied)

Again, a learned single judge of the High Court of Madras in

the case of S. MATHAVAN Vs. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF

FOREST / DIRECTOR2, has held as follows:

1
2007 SCC OnLine Mad 1539
2
W.P.(MD) No.15486 of 2014 DECIDED ON 24.07.2017
17

"9.At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer
to Section 27 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which
reads as follows; 27.Restriction on entry in sanctuary-(1) No
person other than,-

(a) a public servant on duty;

(b) a person who has been permitted by the Chief Wild
Life Warden or the authorised officer to reside within the
limits of the sanctuary;

(d) a person passing through the sanctuary along a
public highway; and
(e) the dependants of the person referred to in clause
(a), clause (b) or clause (c), shall enter or reside in the
sanctuary, except under and in accordance with the
conditions of a permit granted under Section 28.

(2) Every person shall, so long as he resides in the
sanctuary, be bound-

(a) to prevent the commission, in the sanctuary, of an
offence against this Act;

(b)where there is reason to believe that any such
offence against this Act has been committed in such
sanctuary, to help in discovering and arresting the offender;

(c) to report the death of any wild animal and to
safeguard its remains until the Chief Wild Life Warden or the
authorised officer takes charge thereof;

(d) to extinguish any fire in such sanctuary of which
he has knowledge or information and to prevent from
spreading, by any lawful means in his power, any fire within
the vicinity of such sanctuary of which he has knowledge or
information; and
18

(e) to assist any Forest Officer, Chief Wild Life
Warden, Wild Life Warden or Police Officer demanding his aid
for preventing the commission of any offence against this Act
or in the investigation of any such offence.

(3) No person shall, with intent to cause damage to
any boundary-mark of a sanctuary or to cause wrongful gain
as defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), alter,
destroy, move or deface such boundary-mark.

(4) No person shall tease or molest any wild animal or
litter the grounds of sanctuary.?

A bare reading of Sub section (1)(c) of Section
27 of the Act makes it clear that a person, who has any
right over the immovable property within the limits of
the sanctuary, can be permitted to enter or reside in
the sanctuary. The persons, who do not come within
the category indicated in Section 27(1)(a) to (e), are
required to obtain a permit as contemplated in Section
28 to enter or reside in the sanctuary. However, no
such permit is required for a person who has any right
over the immovable property within the limits of the
sanctuary. He can exercise his normal right available,
save and except certain restrictions which are
contemplated. But, there appears to be no provision
prohibiting an owner of a land exercising his right over
such land. This was the position before the Act was
amended and continues to be so even after
amendment. However, under the unamended
provisions, the Collector was either required to
exclude such land from the limits of the proposed
sanctuary or proceed to acquire such land or right. It
is obvious that until such land was acquired, the
owner could more or less exercise all his rights.

(Emphasis supplied)
19

The Apex Court in the case of NATESAN AGENCIES

(PLANTATIONS) VS. STATE3, gives its imprimatur to the said

order. The Apex Court holds as follows:

"17.1. The Division Bench of the High Court has
noticed in the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2007,
and rightly so, that even as per the admission of the
PW-1, the appellant had not been dispossessed. So far
as the restriction on entry is concerned, as per Section
27 of the Act of 1972, a person having any right over
the immovable property within the limits of sanctuary
is not debarred from entering into or residing within
the sanctuary. At the most, the duties as contemplated
by sub-section (2) of Section 27 are to be performed.
Such duties, essentially to protect the sanctuary and
its habitants, cannot be said to be leading to any
debarment from exercising any legal right.

17.2. In our view, the Division Bench has rightly
observed in the impugned judgment that there is
nothing on record to establish that the original owner
and the plaintiff were prevented from going inside the
forest and collecting the usufructs. In a
comprehension of the facts on record and the law
applicable, it cannot be said that the plaintiff-appellant
was prevented from exercising its lawful rights in any
unlawful manner by the State. Hence, there appears
no basis for the appellant to maintain an action for
damages.

(Emphasis supplied)

A review petition was preferred against the said judgment

and it comes to be dismissed. The order of dismissal is reported in

(2020) 4 SCC 160.
3
(2019) 15 SCC 70
20

10. The objections filed by the State traces back the date of

grant and these lands in favour of the grantees. At no point in time

any proceedings are instituted against the grantees by the State,

nor the grantees against the State, to now contend with regard to

the title of the property in a case, which does not concern a title but

concerning the usage of the road to the immovable property and

the purport of Section 27 of the Act. Therefore, those objections so

filed are undoubtedly untenable, as it is not a case of no access but,

a case of restricted access, which is contrary to Section 27 of the

Act and interpretation of it by the division bench of the High Court

of Madras as affirmed by the Apex Court. Therefore, there is no

provision under the Act to deny entry to an immovable property

inside the forest area.

11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner who has filed

his rejoinder would submit that the property does not come within

the sanctuary either, it only borders the sanctuary. Therefore, there

can no impediment for usage of the road. It is his submission that

the forest cannot now make out a case that it is a forest land. The

submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner merits
21

acceptance. If the purchase of the property is in a particular place

and the access to the said property is only the forest land, what is

to be noticed is, the State has granted access in terms of Section

27(1)(c) of the Act, but adds a rider that it should not be between 6

p.m. to 6 a.m. This cannot be countenanced. If there is access, it

should be complete access. Thus, the order that permits access

between certain hours is, on the face of it, contrary to Section 27 of

the Act and its interpretation by the Apex Court and the High Court

of Madras. Being contrary to Section 27 of the Act and judicial

interpretations, the unmistakable inference would be obliteration of

the order. It would have been altogether different circumstance if

there was no access. Whether it would be contrary to Section 27 of

the Act or otherwise is not the scope of the present petition. But

there is access, the access hinders by restrictive timings.

Therefore, the order impugned dated 01-03-2024, insofar as it

restricts the entry of the petitioner to his property between 6 p.m.

to 6 a.m. is to be quashed to that limited extent.
22

12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 01-03-2024 passed by the 3rd respondent stands quashed, only insofar as it restricts the timings of the entry to the property of the petitioner.

(iii) Mandamus issues to the respondents to provide un- hindered access to the petitioner to access his property in accordance with law.

(iv) It is made clear that the petitioner, while using the property, shall not cause any damage, physically or otherwise to any flora and fauna in the Nugu Wild Life sanctuary.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court