LAWS(KAR)-2026-3-2

SHIVAGANGA STONE CRUSHING INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On March 04, 2026
Shivaganga Stone Crushing Industries Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(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 dtd. 16/5/2019, 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 dtd. 11/4/2017, proposing the extent of KW Sanctuary be held as final.

(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 dtd. 11/4/2017 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 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.