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

High Court of Karnataka Division Bench Hears Batch of Writ Petitions Challenging the Validity of State Notification Imposing Forest Development Tax on Mining Leases. The Petitioners Seek Declaration that the Notification is Ultra Vires the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Constitution.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
Admin
2026-09-16 10:55:33
  • 111
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

Whether the notification dated 16.08.2008 issued under Section 98A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 is ultra vires Article 246 read with Entry 54 of the Union List, and whether forest development tax can be demanded without prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (KAR) (12) 24

Writ Petition No. 2642/2009 (GM-MM-S) c/w 44793/2013, 13595/2008 and other connected writ petitions

2015-12-03

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, B.V. Nagarathna

K. Raghavacharyulu, D.R. Ravishankar, Udaya Holla, K.N. Phanindra, D.L.N. Rao, S.R. Anuradha, L.M. Chidanandayya, K.N. Srinivasa; for respondents: Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, Advocate General, A.S. Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General, Y.H. Vijay Kumar, Additional Government Advocate

National Mineral Development Corporation Limited (NMDC Ltd.), Vedanta Limited, Federation of Indian Mineral Industries and others

State of Karnataka, Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bellary Division, and others

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

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to constitutional validity and legality of state notification and demand notices imposing forest development tax on mining leases.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought to quash the notification dated 16.08.2008 and demand notices, and to declare the notification ultra vires and inapplicable.

Filing Reason

State government issued notification under Section 98A of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 imposing forest development tax on mining leases; petitioners contended that prior central approval under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was required and that entry-54 of Union List vests control over mines with Parliament, making state levy unconstitutional.

Issues

Whether the notification dated 16.08.2008 issued under Section 98A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 is ultra vires Article 246 read with Entry 54 of Union List. Whether forest development tax can be demanded from mining lessees without prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Whether Section 98A itself is unconstitutional.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 246, Seventh Schedule List I Entry 54
  • Karnataka Forest Act, 1963: Section 98A
  • Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: Section 2
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
forest development tax ultra vires mining leases forest conservation constitutional validity prior approval Karnataka Forest Act

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses State's Objections to Arbitration Award Filing and Interest Award in Arbitration Act Case. Arbitrator's Suo Motu Filing and Pre-Reference Interest Award Upheld Under Sections 14(2), 2(c) of Arbitration Act, 1940 and Section 61... 2026-09-17 01:35:45
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Court Staff in Maharashtra Public Records Act Case Due to Absence of Mens Rea and Lack of Power of State Information Commissioner. Court Staff Not Responsible for Missing Records as Applications Were Returned to ... 2026-09-17 01:35:44
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?