Case Note & Summary
The petition was filed by a stone crushing firm challenging communications that interdicted its quarrying and crushing operations on the ground that the land fell within a forest area and required permission under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The petitioner held a quarry lease over 8.20 acres and a stone crusher licence over 1 acre in Survey No. 124 of Hadonahalli Village, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. The lease was initially granted to one H. Krishnamurthy and later transferred to the petitioner. A stone crusher licence was issued after the area was declared a safer zone, and the petitioner also obtained a Consent for Operation from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. Renewal of the lease was processed based on a No Objection Certificate issued by the Forest Department in 2015, which stated that the land was not part of reserve forest, land bank, or C and D forest land. Despite this, the Department of Mines and Geology and the Forest Department later took the view that the land is forest land and required forest clearance under the FC Act. The impugned communications directed the petitioner to obtain a Forest Clearance Certificate and initiated steps to cancel the lease. The petitioner contended that the land was not forest land and that the earlier village forest notification had been cancelled. The respondents relied on a 1929 notification declaring the land as reserved land, asserting it became a district forest. The court considered the definition of forest land under the FC Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman, noting that all areas recorded as forest or meeting the dictionary meaning of forest attract the provisions of the Act. It examined the 1927 and 1929 notifications and observed that the village forest notification was indisputably cancelled. The court was in the midst of analyzing the effect of the simultaneous declaration of the land as reserved land to determine whether it constituted forest land under the FC Act, but the judgment text truncates before the conclusion.
Headnote
A) Forest Law - Definition of Forest Land - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Section 2 - The court reiterated that the term "forest land" under the Act includes any area recorded as forest in government records or fitting the dictionary meaning of "forest", irrespective of ownership, as laid down in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267. Non-forest activities on such land require prior Central Government permission. (Paras 13-14)
B) Forest Law - Cancellation of Village Forest Notification - Mysore Forest Regulation (XI of 1900), Section 31 - The petitioner argued that the land, though initially declared a village forest under the 1900 Regulation, had that notification cancelled by a subsequent notification dated 04.09.1929, thereby removing its classification as a village forest. The court examined the notification and noted that the cancellation was undisputed. (Paras 15-16)
C) Forest Law - Declaration as Reserve Land - Mysore Forest Regulation (XI of 1900), Section 35 - The respondents contended that on the same date of cancellation, another notification declared the land as "Reserved Land (Fodder Reserve)", which the forest authorities claimed rendered the land a district forest under the Forest Regulation. The court was in the process of interpreting the effect of this notification to determine whether the land is forest land under the FC Act. (Paras 11, 16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the subject land falls within the definition of forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and whether quarrying activities can continue without forest clearance
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Definition of forest land under Forest (Conservation) Act
- 1980
- requirement of prior permission of Central Government for non-forest activities on forest land
- interpretation of forest as including statutorily recognised forests and government-recorded forest
- cancellation of village forest notification under Mysore Forest Regulation
- 1900
- declaration of reserve land as district forest
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (05) 14
Writ Petition No. 4619 of 2024 (GM-MM-S)
Hon'ble Mr. Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.M. Poonacha
Sri Vivek Reddy, Senior Advocate a/w Sri Rohit R. Kumar, Advocate; Smt. Niloufer Akbar, AGA
M/S Anjanadri Stone Crushers (represented by its partner Muniraju N)
State of Karnataka & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging communications that required forest clearance for quarrying and stone crushing activities, and seeking non-interference with operations on the leasehold land.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the reminder letter dated 05.09.2023, the communication dated 07.07.2023, and the endorsement dated 30.09.2023; a direction to respondents not to disturb quarrying and stone crushing activities; and directions for issuance of Mineral Dispatch Permits through the Integrated Lease Management System.
Filing Reason
The forest authorities interdicted quarrying and stone-crushing activities and initiated steps to cancel the quarry lease on the ground that the subject land is forest land requiring prior permission under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, leading to suspension of operations.
Previous Decisions
A spot inspection report and revenue opinion dated 28.04.2015 observed that the leased area is Government Hullubanni land not transferred to the Forest Department. Respondent No.7 issued a No Objection Certificate dated 26.06.2015 stating that the land is not included in reserve forest, land bank, or C&D forest land. Based on the NOC and technical report, the petitioner was granted the quarry lease and stone crusher licence.
Issues
Whether non-forest activities are permissible on the subject land without obtaining permission under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Whether the subject land is a part of forest lands.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner contended that the land is not forest land; the initial village forest notification was cancelled by the subsequent notification dated 04.09.1929, and the NOC and grant of lease further indicated its non-forest character.
The respondents argued that the land is forest land; the notification dated 04.09.1929 declared the land as reserved land, making it a district forest, and therefore non-forest activities without FC Act permission are impermissible.
Ratio Decidendi
The term 'forest land' under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 includes all statutorily recognised forests, any area recorded as forest in government records irrespective of ownership, and any area fitting the dictionary meaning of 'forest'. Non-forest activities in forest land require prior permission of the Central Government under the Act.
Judgment Excerpts
The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term “forest land”, occurring in Section 2, will not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership.
there is no serious dispute that if the subject land was a part of the forest land, it could not have been diverted for carrying on any non-forest activities without the permission of the Central Government under the FC Act.
Thus, undisputedly, the lands falling in Survey No.125 were no longer classified as Village Forest.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court heard the matter and reserved it for orders. The CAV judgment was pronounced on 30 April 2026.
Acts & Sections
- Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: 2, 2(i)
- Mysore Forest Regulation (XI of 1900): 31, 35
- Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994: 8(2)
- Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011:
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
