ORDER : M. Nagaprasanna, J. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order/direction dated 01-03-2024, by which access to petitioner’s property is restricted to certain hours. A consequential direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus is sought for unrestricted access to his property within the forest road. 2. Heard Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - The subject land bearing Sy. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 26, 32 and 33 of Shambugowdanahalli and Lakkasoge Villages, Sargur Hobli, H.D. Kote Taluk, Mysore is granted to certain persons between 1966 and 1972. The original grantees died and legal heirs of the grantees sell the subject property between 2010 and 2021 to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner becomes the owner of the property pursuant to those registered sale deeds. The sale deeds are also appended to the petition. The petitioner being a private land owner submits a representation for the purpose of access to his property. Access is granted initially and the access later comes to be modified by the impugned direction that the petitioner can enter his property only between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. It is this restricted entry to the petitioner’s property that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned senior counsel Sri Vikram Huilgol appearing for the petitioner submits that the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (‘the Act’ for short) provides exception to restriction on entry only in terms of Section 27 of the Act. The learned senior counsel would submit that Section 27(1)(c) provides an exception to the restriction on entry to any sanctuary for persons with immovable property within sanctuary limits with the conditions of permit granted under Section 28. The entry is granted, but it is restricted for particular timings. This restriction infringes his fundamental right of movement in the property owned by him for the last 25 years. The learned senior counsel submits that there is no permanent access to the immovable property in question, except through the forest land. Alternate access does exist which cannot be used as water level in Nugu Reservoir rises beyond 100 feet. He would submit that the State has granted access, but has restricted it, which is contrary to law. 5. The learned senior counsel submits that there is no permanent access to the immovable property in question, except through the forest land. Alternate access does exist which cannot be used as water level in Nugu Reservoir rises beyond 100 feet. He would submit that the State has granted access, but has restricted it, which is contrary to law. 5. Per contra, Sri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently refute the submissions by taking this Court through the documents appended to the objections to contend that the petitioner has no right to even urge that he should be permitted access in the forest area. It is his submission that if the petitioner has purchased a property in the forest area, he will have to abide by the Rules under the statute, which clearly prohibits entry into any place of the forest. He would further contend that in identical cases the Apex Court has clearly held that the forest roads cannot be permitted to be used by private persons. The learned High Court Government Pleader would further take this court through statement of objections to contend that the title of the property is itself erroneous as the grant that is made in favour of the vendors of the property is itself cancelled later. Contending thus, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that no fault can be found to the restricted entry of the petitioner. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would join the issue in refuting the submissions of the learned High Court Government Pleader. He would contend that the State cannot now go back and make submissions with regard to the title of the property. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The issue in the lis is in a narrow compass as to whether Section 27 of the Act would permit unhindered access to the property of the petitioner. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The subject land is granted between the years 1966 and 1972. The original grantees who had by then died, the legal heirs of the original grantees are said to have sold the land to the petitioner way back in the year 2010. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The subject land is granted between the years 1966 and 1972. The original grantees who had by then died, the legal heirs of the original grantees are said to have sold the land to the petitioner way back in the year 2010. The RTCs are appended to the petition and the RTCs depict the petitioner to be the owner of the property. The property is situated within the boundaries of Nugu Wild Life Sanctuary. On 29-08-2022 a show cause notice comes to be issued to the petitioner stating that movement of jeeps in the forest road which was leading to the property of the petitioner was objectionable. The show cause reads as follows: The petitioner replies to the said notice quoting Section 27 of the Act which permits usage of the property. The reply to the notice reads as follows: “2nd September 2022 By Hard E-Mail & Registered Post To, The Assistant Conservator of Forests, Hediyal Sub-Division, Hediyal Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District 571316 Email: hediyala.acf@gmail.com Ref: Show Cause Notice dated 29 th August 2022 (the Notice Sub: Reply to the Notice Respected Sir/Madam The undersigned has been placed in possession of the captioned Notice which, inter alia, sets out: a. The publication of certain adverse newspaper articles pertaining to the undersigned's private property within the Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary; b. A direction to the undersigned to seek permission, from your good office, in order to enable him, use of and access to the road/pathway leading to the undersigned's private property at Survey No.33 of Lakkasoge Village, Sargur Taluk; without which permission such use of and access to the road/pathway to the undersigned's private property within the Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary is purportedly violative of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (the Act ); and c. A direction to the undersigned to produce, before your good office, all relevant documents pertaining to the undersigned's private property as referred to above. At the outset, the undersigned respectfully draws your good office's attention to Section 27 (1) (c) of the Act which is excerpted below for ease of reference: "27. Restriction on entry in sanctuary’ (1) No person other than,-… (c) a person who has any right over immovable property within the limits of the sanctuary…. At the outset, the undersigned respectfully draws your good office's attention to Section 27 (1) (c) of the Act which is excerpted below for ease of reference: "27. Restriction on entry in sanctuary’ (1) No person other than,-… (c) a person who has any right over immovable property within the limits of the sanctuary…. shall enter or reside in the sanctuary, except under and in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted under section 28..." It is an undisputed fact that the undersigned is the owner of immovable property within the Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary. As such, the undersigned's entry to his private property through such road/pathway in the Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary is squarely protected by the terms of Section 27 (1) (c) of the Act as referred to above. This being the case, the undersigned is puzzled by the insistence displayed by your good office to obtain permission that may enable his ingress and egress to and from his private property when, indisputably, such permission is only to be sought by such persons to whom the protection under Section27 of the Act is inapplicable. While the undersigned is unsure of the exact motive behind any adverse newspaper publications, given that his ingress and egress, to and from his private property within the Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary is as per law, it is evident that such publications are intended to serve no purpose other than to stir public opinion against the undersigned and malign his unblemished reputation. A perusal of the Notice issued by your good office fails to indicate any violation of any law, let alone the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Regardless, the undersigned is ready and willing to place on record all relevant title documents which demonstrate his bona fide ownership and use of the immovable property situated within the Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary. You are requested to kindly grant a personal audience to the undersigned or his authorized representative so that any misapprehension held by your good office may be assuaged. In the meanwhile, your good office is requested to desist from undertaking any measure which may result in unwarranted litigation. The undersigned looks forward to hearing from you and requests your good office, in light of the above, to withdraw the captioned Notice. Sincerely, Sd/- Rana George” (Emphasis added) The notice leads to passing of an order. In the meanwhile, your good office is requested to desist from undertaking any measure which may result in unwarranted litigation. The undersigned looks forward to hearing from you and requests your good office, in light of the above, to withdraw the captioned Notice. Sincerely, Sd/- Rana George” (Emphasis added) The notice leads to passing of an order. The order is grant of permission to access the land through the forest road. The order dated 01-03-2024 reads as follows: The order quoting Section 27(1)(c) of the Act permits usage of the property between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. If they are in by 6 p.m. they should come out only by 6 a.m. next day. Section 27 of the Act which forms the fulcrum of the lis reads as follows: “ 27 . Restriction on entry in sanctuary .—(1) No person other than,— (a) a public servant on duty, (b) a person who has been permitted by the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer to reside within the limits of the sanctuary, (c) a person who has any right over immovable property within the limits of the sanctuary, (d) a person passing through the sanctuary along a public highway, and (e) the dependants of the person referred to in clause (a), clause (b) or clause (c), shall enter or reside in the sanctuary, except under and in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted under section 28. (2) Every person shall, so long, as he resides in the sanctuary, be bound— (a) to prevent the commission, in the sanctuary, of an offence against this Act; (b) where there is reason to believe that any such offence against this Act has been committed in such sanctuary, to help in discovering and arresting the offender; (c) to report the death of any wild animal and to safeguard its remains until the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer takes charge thereof; (d) to extinguish any fire in such sanctuary of which he has knowledge or information and to prevent from spreading, by any lawful means in his power, any fire within the vicinity of such sanctuary of which he has knowledge or information; and (e) to assist any forest officer, Chief Wild Life. Warden, Wild Life Warden or police officer demanding his aid for preventing the commission of any offence against this Act or in the investigation of any such offence. (3) No person shall, with intent to cause damage to any boundary-mark of a sanctuary or to cause wrongful gain as defined in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), alter, destroy, move or deface such boundary-mark. (4) No person shall tease or molest any wild animal or litter the grounds of sanctuary.” (Emphasis supplied) Section 27(1) mandates that no person shall enter or reside in a sanctuary other than a public servant on duty or a person who has been permitted by the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorized officer to reside in the sanctuary. Sub-clause (c) permits a person who has any right over immovable property within the limits of the sanctuary to enter and reside in the sanctuary, except under an order in accordance with the conditions of permit granted under Section 28. The afore-quoted is the order. Restrictive usage of the path between the hours as indicated in the order, is undoubtedly contrary to Section 27(c) of the Act. A division bench of the High Court of Madras in a judgment rendered in the case of STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. NATESAN AGENCIES (PLANTATIONS) , [2007 SCC OnLine Mad 1539] , has held as follows: “29. The provisions contained in Section 27(1) and 27(2), which were part of the original Act, indicate only certain restrictions on entry in the sanctuary. Section 27(1)(c) does not impose any restriction on a person who has any right over any immovable property within the limits of the sanctuary to enter or reside in the sanctuary. Only the persons, who do not come within the category indicated in Section 27(1)(a) to (e), are required to obtain a permit as contemplated in Section 28 to enter or reside in a sanctuary. However, no such permit was required for a person who has any right over the immovable property within the limits of the sanctuary. He can exercise his normal right available, save and except certain restrictions which are contemplated. But, there appears to be no provision prohibiting an owner of a land exercising his right over such land. This was the position before the Act was amended and continues to be so even after amendment. He can exercise his normal right available, save and except certain restrictions which are contemplated. But, there appears to be no provision prohibiting an owner of a land exercising his right over such land. This was the position before the Act was amended and continues to be so even after amendment. However, under the unamended provisions, the Collector was either required to exclude such land from the limits of the proposed sanctuary or proceed to acquire such land or right. It is obvious that until such land was acquired, the owner could more or less exercise all his rights. Under the amended provision a third alternative is contemplated under Section 24(2)(c) to allow the continuance of such right. (Emphasis supplied) Again, a learned single judge of the High Court of Madras in the case of S. MATHAVAN Vs. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST / DIRECTOR , [W.P.(MD) No.15486 of 2014 DECIDED ON 24.07.2017] , has held as follows: “9.At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 27 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which reads as follows; 27.Restriction on entry in sanctuary-(1) No person other than,- (a) a public servant on duty; (b) a person who has been permitted by the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer to reside within the limits of the sanctuary; (c) a person who has any right over immovable property within the limits of the sanctuary; (d) a person passing through the sanctuary along a public highway; and (e) the dependants of the person referred to in clause (a), clause (b) or clause (c), shall enter or reside in the sanctuary, except under and in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted under Section 28. (2) Every person shall, so long as he resides in the sanctuary, be bound- (a) to prevent the commission, in the sanctuary, of an offence against this Act; (b)where there is reason to believe that any such offence against this Act has been committed in such sanctuary, to help in discovering and arresting the offender; (c) to report the death of any wild animal and to safeguard its remains until the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer takes charge thereof; (d) to extinguish any fire in such sanctuary of which he has knowledge or information and to prevent from spreading, by any lawful means in his power, any fire within the vicinity of such sanctuary of which he has knowledge or information; and (e) to assist any Forest Officer, Chief Wild Life Warden, Wild Life Warden or Police Officer demanding his aid for preventing the commission of any offence against this Act or in the investigation of any such offence. (3) No person shall, with intent to cause damage to any boundary-mark of a sanctuary or to cause wrongful gain as defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), alter, destroy, move or deface such boundary-mark. (4) No person shall tease or molest any wild animal or litter the grounds of sanctuary.? A bare reading of Sub section (1)(c) of Section 27 of the Act makes it clear that a person, who has any right over the immovable property within the limits of the sanctuary, can be permitted to enter or reside in the sanctuary. The persons, who do not come within the category indicated in Section 27(1)(a) to (e), are required to obtain a permit as contemplated in Section 28 to enter or reside in the sanctuary. However, no such permit is required for a person who has any right over the immovable property within the limits of the sanctuary. He can exercise his normal right available, save and except certain restrictions which are contemplated. But, there appears to be no provision prohibiting an owner of a land exercising his right over such land. This was the position before the Act was amended and continues to be so even after amendment. However, under the unamended provisions, the Collector was either required to exclude such land from the limits of the proposed sanctuary or proceed to acquire such land or right. This was the position before the Act was amended and continues to be so even after amendment. However, under the unamended provisions, the Collector was either required to exclude such land from the limits of the proposed sanctuary or proceed to acquire such land or right. It is obvious that until such land was acquired, the owner could more or less exercise all his rights. (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the case of NATESAN AGENCIES (PLANTATIONS) VS. STATE , [ (2019) 15 SCC 70 ] , gives its imprimatur to the said order. The Apex Court holds as follows: “17.1. The Division Bench of the High Court has noticed in the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2007, and rightly so, that even as per the admission of the PW-1, the appellant had not been dispossessed. So far as the restriction on entry is concerned, as per Section 27 of the Act of 1972, a person having any right over the immovable property within the limits of sanctuary is not debarred from entering into or residing within the sanctuary. At the most, the duties as contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 27 are to be performed. Such duties, essentially to protect the sanctuary and its habitants, cannot be said to be leading to any debarment from exercising any legal right. 17.2. In our view, the Division Bench has rightly observed in the impugned judgment that there is nothing on record to establish that the original owner and the plaintiff were prevented from going inside the forest and collecting the usufructs. In a comprehension of the facts on record and the law applicable, it cannot be said that the plaintiff-appellant was prevented from exercising its lawful rights in any unlawful manner by the State. Hence, there appears no basis for the appellant to maintain an action for damages. (Emphasis supplied) A review petition was preferred against the said judgment and it comes to be dismissed. The order of dismissal is reported in (2020) 4 SCC 160 10. The objections filed by the State traces back the date of grant and these lands in favour of the grantees. (Emphasis supplied) A review petition was preferred against the said judgment and it comes to be dismissed. The order of dismissal is reported in (2020) 4 SCC 160 10. The objections filed by the State traces back the date of grant and these lands in favour of the grantees. At no point in time any proceedings are instituted against the grantees by the State, nor the grantees against the State, to now contend with regard to the title of the property in a case, which does not concern a title but concerning the usage of the road to the immovable property and the purport of Section 27 of the Act. Therefore, those objections so filed are undoubtedly untenable, as it is not a case of no access but, a case of restricted access, which is contrary to Section 27 of the Act and interpretation of it by the division bench of the High Court of Madras as affirmed by the Apex Court. Therefore, there is no provision under the Act to deny entry to an immovable property inside the forest area. 11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner who has filed his rejoinder would submit that the property does not come within the sanctuary either, it only borders the sanctuary. Therefore, there can no impediment for usage of the road. It is his submission that the forest cannot now make out a case that it is a forest land. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. If the purchase of the property is in a particular place and the access to the said property is only the forest land, what is to be noticed is, the State has granted access in terms of Section 27(1)(c) of the Act, but adds a rider that it should not be between 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. This cannot be countenanced. If there is access, it should be complete access. Thus, the order that permits access between certain hours is, on the face of it, contrary to Section 27 of the Act and its interpretation by the Apex Court and the High Court of Madras. Being contrary to Section 27 of the Act and judicial interpretations, the unmistakable inference would be obliteration of the order. It would have been altogether different circumstance if there was no access. Being contrary to Section 27 of the Act and judicial interpretations, the unmistakable inference would be obliteration of the order. It would have been altogether different circumstance if there was no access. Whether it would be contrary to Section 27 of the Act or otherwise is not the scope of the present petition. But there is access, the access hinders by restrictive timings. Therefore, the order impugned dated 01-03-2024, insofar as it restricts the entry of the petitioner to his property between 6 p.m.to 6 a.m. is to be quashed to that limited extent. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 01-03-2024 passed by the3 rd respondent stands quashed, only insofar as it restricts the timings of the entry to the property of the petitioner. (iii) Mandamus issues to the respondents to provide un-hindered access to the petitioner to access his property in accordance with law. (iv) It is made clear that the petitioner, while using the property, shall not cause any damage, physically or otherwise to any flora and fauna in the Nugu Wild Life sanctuary.