Nagarhole Budakath Hakky Sthapna Samithi v. State of Karnataka
AIR 1997 Kar. 288 [G.C. Bharuka J.,]
Granting leasing rights in National Park
The petitioners organizations working for the Welfare of the tribals and are interested in ensuring the maintenance of ecological flame in NagarholeNational Park. It challenged lease hold rights in certain properties situated in the midst of Nagarhole National Park under lease deed by the Government of Karnataka in favour M/s Gateway Hotels Resorts Ltd., This private company running its business of boarding, lodging and restaurant, for ta period of 18 years.
The petitioners contented that the grant of lease hold rights violates the statutory restrictions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The petitioner argued there is threat to tribals and eco-tourism will bring modern day ……… of the ultra urban culture.
The petitioners alleged that the under the ……. of renovation of the structures, the respondent – company is putting up new structures extending its operational activities to unworked forest lands by constructing metalled roads and cutting trees. They also claimed powerful generator sets have been installed which is indue course will severely affect natural movement wild animals.
The respondents company repudiated the allegations of the petitioners and argued that they placed builders on pre ……. jungle path ways to make the roads ……………..for an easy access to the resort.
The State Government should be taken prior approval of Central Government as stated under section 2 of Forest Conservation Act before leasing the same land to the private company.
A conjoint reeding of section 20 and 35(3) of the Act spells out a restriction on requisition of any right in, on or ver land comprised within the limits of the area of a national except by succession, ………….. or interstate.
The Court felt that after the declaration by the State Government its intention to declare an area as a national park under section 35(1) no one can acquire any right in on or over the land comprised therein.
The court ordered to the respondent company to immediately stop al its activities on the forest land in question and handover its possession to the State Government. The cost of the PIL assessed at 10,0000 to be paid by the State Government and respondent Company.