Karnataka High Court
Credit: DH Photo
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has said that there is no provision under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to deny entry to an immovable property inside the forests or bordering the forest area.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said this while allowing the petition filed by Rana George, son of power minister KJ George. The court has also directed the petitioner that while using the property, he shall not cause any damage, physically or otherwise to any flora and fauna in the Nugu WildLife sanctuary.
Rana George’s property is situated at Shambhugowdanahalli and Lakkasoge villages, Saraguru hobli, HD Kote taluk, bordering the Nugu WildLife Sanctuary. It was contended that access to his property was granted initially but later modified by the direction that he can enter his property only between 6 am and 6 pm.
It was submitted that following a newspaper report that only a certain ‘influential person’ is having an access through the forest land, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. After the petitioner replied to the notice, on March 1, 2024 an order was passed quoting Section 27(1)(c) of the Wildlife Act permitting the use of the forest road only between 6 am and 6 pm.
The advocate for the petitioner argued that this restriction infringes the fundamental right of movement in the property owned by him for the last 25 years. It was further submitted that though there is an alternate access the same cannot be used when water level in Nugu Reservoir rises beyond 100 feet.
The court cited the interpretation of section 27 by the division bench of the Madras High Court as affirmed by the Apex Court, to hold that there is no provision under the Act to deny entry to an immovable property inside the forest area.
The court noted that granting access in terms of section 27(1)(c) with a rider that it should not be between 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. 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,” Justice M Nagaprasanna said.
The court further said, “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.”