Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

High Court of Karnataka Adjudicates Batch of Writ Petitions Challenging Notification Dated 16.08.2008 Imposing Forest Development Tax. Validity of Notification Questioned on Grounds of Legislative Competence and Consistency with Central Forest Laws.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
Admin
2026-08-21 20:09:04
  • 111
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

Whether Section 98A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, and the Notification dated 16.08.2008 are ultra vires the Constitution and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (KAR) (12) 1

W.P.No.2642/2009 (GM-MM-S) along with Writ Petition Nos.44793/2013, 13595/2008, 13516/2008, 13654/2008, 13803/2008, 14157/2008, 14802/2008, 30927/2008 and many other connected matters

2015-12-03

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, Acting Chief Justice, and B.V. Nagarathna, Justice

K. Raghavacharyulu for D.R. Ravishankar; Udaya Holla for K.N. Phanindra; D.L.N. Rao for S.R. Anuradha; L.M. Chidanandayya; K.N. Srinivasa; and Ravivarma Kumar, Advocate General, along with A.S. Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General, and Y.H. Vijay Kumar, Additional Government Advocate for the State

National Mineral Development Corporation Limited (now NMDC Ltd.) and other petitioners including Vedanta Limited, Federation of Indian Mineral Industries, Canara Minerals Private Limited, State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., and others

State of Karnataka, Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bellary Division, and other forest officials

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to constitutional validity of notification imposing forest development tax

Remedy Sought

Petitioners seek to quash the notification dated 16.08.2008 and subsequent demand notices, and a declaration that the notification is ultra vires the Constitution and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

Filing Reason

Notification imposed tax on minerals extracted from forest lands, allegedly beyond State’s legislative competence and contrary to central forest conservation law

Issues

Whether Section 98A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the Notification dated 16.08.2008 are ultra vires Article 246 read with Entry 54 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution? Whether the State Legislature has legislative competence to impose forest development tax on minerals? Whether the Notification violates the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980?

Procedural History

The writ petitions were filed between 2008 and 2013 challenging the notification dated 16.08.2008 and demand notices. They were consolidated and heard together. Final arguments were heard and judgment was reserved/passed on 03-12-2015.

Acts & Sections

  • Karnataka Forest Act, 1963: Section 98A
  • Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980:
  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227, 246, Entry 54 of List I (Seventh Schedule)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
forest development tax notification mining legislative competence Karnataka Forest Act Forest Conservation Act writ petition ultra vires

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Reduces Compensation in Motor Accident Claim Due to Deduction of Personal Expenses and Application of Multiplier. Tribunal's award modified by applying multiplier of 11 instead of 13 and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of ... 2026-09-17 04:00:30
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Purchaser in Land Sale Dispute Concerning Muslim Gift and Res Judicata. Oral Gift by Father to Minor Sons and Wife Fails for Lack of Declaration, Acceptance, and Delivery of Possession Under Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law S... 2026-09-17 04:00:30
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition Natural Justice acquittal murder Compensation burden of proof limitation Article 226 Land acquisition benefit of doubt
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

Bombay High Court Dismisses MBBS Student's Writ Petition Seeking Fourth Attempt in Anatomy...

High Court of Bombay Hears Writ Petitions Challenging Tenancy Orders Under Bombay Tenancy ...

Supreme Court Acquits Appellant in Prevention of Corruption Act Case Due to Absence of Pec...

Supreme Court Modifies High Court Order Appointing Different Arbitrator Under Section 11 o...

Supreme Court Upholds Scrutiny Committee Invalidation of Scheduled Tribe Caste Claim but P...

Supreme Court Allows Homebuyers' Appeal and Waives Time Extension Charges Imposed by Devel...

Supreme Court Dismisses Insurer's and Claimant's Appeals in Motor Accident Death Compensat...

Lost Your Password?