Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 38289 (KAR)

PLACID CLINTON VAS v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/4716/2023 · 2026-08-31

M G S Kamal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010103342023 NC: 2026:KHC:47320 WP No. 4716 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4716 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: PLACID CLINTON VAS AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O CYRIL PAUL VAS 276, C VI PRESCLIN HOUSE JOGAYYANAKATTE ROAD BEHIND SHARADA MOTOR WORKS KUNDAPURA, UDUPI KARNATAKA - 57620 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. URMILA PULLAT - ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION AND G.W.D DIVISION AMBAGILU, PUTTUR, NH 66, UDUPI - 576102. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE'S OFFICE, UDUPI DISTRICT, 'RAJATADRI', MANIPAL, UDUPI - 576104. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010103342023 NC: 2026:KHC:47320 WP No. 4716 of 2023 4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS FOREST DEPARTMENT KUNDAPUR DIVISION, FERRY ROAD, KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576201 5. SENIOR GEOLOGIST OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, MANIPAL, UDUPI - 576104 6. TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, BYNDOOR, UDUPI - 576214 7. REGIONAL DIRECTOR (ENVIRONMENT) 1ST FLOOR, C BLOCK, 'RAJATHADRI', MANIPAL, UDUPI - 576104. 8. KAMAL KISHORE HEGDE, CONTRACTOR S/O SITHARAM HEGDE OPPOSITE SAHANA CONVENTION, NH-66, KOTESHWAR GRAMA, KUNDAPURA, UDUPI - 576222 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR - AGA FOR R1 TO R7) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FORTHWITH STOP AND HALT ALL THE WORK PURSUANT TO THE WORK AGREEMENT D.A.R. NO.369/22-23 DTD 16.11.2022 (ANNEXURE-C); DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO STOP CUTTING DOWN KANDLA AND ANY OTHER TREES AND DAMAGING BIODIVERSITY ON THE RIVERBANK AND ADJACENT AREAS AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010103342023 NC: 2026:KHC:47320 WP No. 4716 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of 0.50 acres of land in Sy.No.149/7A situated at Maravanthe Village of Byndoor Taluk, is before this Court being aggrieved by Respondent No.2 carrying out the Project called and known as "River Bank Protection Work" near Sri Maharaja Swamy Varaha Temple and improvements to Thodu near Marvante Shri Rama Mandir Grama Panchayath of Byndoor Assembly Constituency of Udupi District through a private Contractor viz., Respondent No.8. 2. Since one of the grounds urged in the writ petition is, while carrying out the aforesaid work respondents had encroached upon and had illegally trespassed into the property belonging to the petitioner, this Court had directed the counsel for the petitioner to furnish the details of location of the land belonging to the petitioner. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010103342023 NC: 2026:KHC:47320 WP No. 4716 of 2023 3. In furtherance thereof, today, the counsel for the petitioner files a Memo along with two copies of Survey Sketch. She submits that there has been no trespass or illegal encroachment by the Respondent-Authority over the property of the petitioner in view of the interim order granted by this Court. Therefore, she submits that petitioner would not press said ground. 4. However, she insists that the nature of work being carried on by the Respondent-Authority requires permission to be obtained from the Environmental Clearance Authority as required under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'). 5. She relies upon the Notification dated 18.01.2019 and refers to paragraph 4(iv) and 5.1.2 CRZ-1B and 5.2 CRZ- II to contend that, the activities enumerated thereunder requires prior permission from the competent authorities which the State has not obtained. That the petitioner has no reach to obtain the information, 'whether or not the State has obtained permission required under the said Notification or under the Act, so as to bring to the notice - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010103342023 NC: 2026:KHC:47320 WP No. 4716 of 2023 of this Court. That the Respondent-State ought to have filed statement of objections placing on record permissions, if any obtained as required under the aforesaid Act and the Notification. 6. She relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nur Islam and Others vs. State of Assam and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3051. Referring to paragraph No.21 of the said Judgment, she insists that even if no specific prayer is made, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can mould the relief and therefore, submits that the petition be allowed. 7. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that, the work which was allotted to the private Respondent No.8 was to carry out river bank conservation and flood protection work. He submitted that the location of the lands, in and around the area where the project is being carried out, are in the nature of tiny islands which are prone to severity of weather which requires to be preserved and provide connectivity. It is in this direction i.e., for the protection of the larger environmental area and for - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010103342023 NC: 2026:KHC:47320 WP No. 4716 of 2023 providing connectivity to the inhabitants thereof, the work were undertaken with the Technical Sanction issued by the Chief Engineer, where there has been no activity which fall foul either of the Act or of the Notification referred to by the petitioner. He further submits that the work has already been completed. Therefore, the petition has, thus rendered infructuous. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8 furnishing the photographs and the Completion Certificate submits that, the photographs produced indicate construction of Pathways and Cartways constructed primarily to conserve the river bank with stone and mud bunds around the water-clogging areas to prevent further erosion and facilitate people's movement around without cutting any trees or causing any loss or damage to the environment. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner is misplaced. 9. Upon a query by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out the specific provisions in the Act or the provisions in the Notification which are - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010103342023 NC: 2026:KHC:47320 WP No. 4716 of 2023 being violated except pointing out paragraph 4(iv) of the Notification. 10. Perusal of the paragraph 4(iv) indicate that land reclamation, bunding or disturbing the natural course of seawater except for the activities permissible under the said Notification and executed with prior permission from the competent authority. 11. The work carried out by respondents is preservation of river bank protection work. It is not clear whether it falls within the said prohibited nature of work. 12. Be that as it is. Admittedly there being no illegal encroachment or trespass by the respondent-Authority over the property belonging to the petitioner. In the light of work of rive bank protection having been completed, as noted in the Completion Certificate and the photographs produced by respondent No.8, and in the absence of any specific ground being pointed out regarding violation of the provision of Act or Notification, - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010103342023 NC: 2026:KHC:47320 WP No. 4716 of 2023 this Court do not see any reason to show indulgence in the petition being considered. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30