<p>Bengaluru: In the wake of the controversy surrounding the move to ‘reduce’ the boundary of Shettihalli sanctuary in Shivamogga, Forest Minister Eshwar Khandre on Wednesday visited the sanctuary to understand the situation.</p>.<p>Khandre, who visited the areas, said the department has been trying to correct the boundary since 2016. “The original boundary includes a bus station, many government buildings and part of the city and other areas. We have inspected the area and held two meetings. Another meeting will be held to finalise the matter. A decision will be made to balance life and livelihood,” the minister said to the media.</p>.<p>Khandre’s visit comes weeks after the state wildlife board deferred the proposal for rationalisation, in view of the legal complications. The Forest Department and the state government have for the last several years argued that the extent of the sanctuary was about 395 sqkm and not 695 sqkm which “inadvertently” entered the records. However, the sanctuary, notified in 1974 under Section 18 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, describes a boundary which puts the area at well beyond 700 sqkm.</p>.15 years on, debate on illegal mining returns to Karnataka Assembly.<p>The standing committee of the National Board of Wildlife initially approved the state government’s request to alter the boundary to 395 sqkm. It imposed a condition that two forest patches be added to the buffer area of Bhadra Tiger Reserve. However, the Union environment minister who heads the committee, advised the inclusion of the forest areas in the sanctuary in the next meeting.</p>.<p>Conservationists had written to the Central Empowered Committee assisting the Supreme Court against the government’s move. They have pointed out that as per Section 18 of the Act, it is the boundary, not extent, that defines the sanctuary area. Moreover, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that boundary described in such documents prevails over the extent mentioned.</p>.<p>Conservationists have questioned a decision made by the committee to drop 30,000 acres of notified forest from the encroachment because they have come under encroachment. Sources said the minister was briefed about the controversial decision on the matter.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: In the wake of the controversy surrounding the move to ‘reduce’ the boundary of Shettihalli sanctuary in Shivamogga, Forest Minister Eshwar Khandre on Wednesday visited the sanctuary to understand the situation.</p>.<p>Khandre, who visited the areas, said the department has been trying to correct the boundary since 2016. “The original boundary includes a bus station, many government buildings and part of the city and other areas. We have inspected the area and held two meetings. Another meeting will be held to finalise the matter. A decision will be made to balance life and livelihood,” the minister said to the media.</p>.<p>Khandre’s visit comes weeks after the state wildlife board deferred the proposal for rationalisation, in view of the legal complications. The Forest Department and the state government have for the last several years argued that the extent of the sanctuary was about 395 sqkm and not 695 sqkm which “inadvertently” entered the records. However, the sanctuary, notified in 1974 under Section 18 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, describes a boundary which puts the area at well beyond 700 sqkm.</p>.15 years on, debate on illegal mining returns to Karnataka Assembly.<p>The standing committee of the National Board of Wildlife initially approved the state government’s request to alter the boundary to 395 sqkm. It imposed a condition that two forest patches be added to the buffer area of Bhadra Tiger Reserve. However, the Union environment minister who heads the committee, advised the inclusion of the forest areas in the sanctuary in the next meeting.</p>.<p>Conservationists had written to the Central Empowered Committee assisting the Supreme Court against the government’s move. They have pointed out that as per Section 18 of the Act, it is the boundary, not extent, that defines the sanctuary area. Moreover, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that boundary described in such documents prevails over the extent mentioned.</p>.<p>Conservationists have questioned a decision made by the committee to drop 30,000 acres of notified forest from the encroachment because they have come under encroachment. Sources said the minister was briefed about the controversial decision on the matter.</p>