Loading...
Loading...
Law Update
Quick note
Below is the official summary and the reference document preview. Use “Open PDF” for full screen view.
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has issued a draft proposal for an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around Nagarahole Tiger Reserve in Karnataka.
The draft was issued as S.O. 4862(E) on 2, September 2026, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. It is open for public objections and suggestions and should not yet be read as the final Nagarahole ESZ notification.
The proposal is particularly relevant for businesses with land, projects or operations around Nagarahole. Hotels, resorts, construction companies, industrial units, mining and quarrying businesses, infrastructure developers, MSMEs and landowners could all be affected differently depending on where the project lies and what activity is proposed.
The draft places some activities in the prohibited category, keeps others regulated, and separately identifies activities that are to be promoted.
That distinction matters. Being located inside an Eco-Sensitive Zone does not automatically mean that every business activity stops. The real answer depends on the exact location, land use, type of project and the category in which the activity falls.
| Particular | Details |
| Issuing Authority | Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change |
| Notification Number | S.O. 4862(E) |
| Date | 2 September 2026 |
| Status | Draft Notification |
| Legal Basis | Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 |
| Protected Area | Nagarahole Tiger Reserve |
| State | Karnataka |
| Tiger Reserve Area Mentioned | 843.96 sq. km |
| Proposed ESZ Area | 573.959 sq. km |
| General ESZ Extent Stated | 0 to 7.5 km |
| Villages Covered | 101 villages, wholly or partly |
| Village Area | 271.61 sq. km |
| Notified Reserve Forest Area | 302.36 sq. km |
| Consultation | Objections and suggestions invited |
| Consultation Period | 60 days from the date Gazette copies containing the notification are made available to the public |
| Final Effective Date | Not yet specified because this is a draft |
| Important Business Sectors | Hotels, tourism, construction, industries, mining, infrastructure, agriculture and land development |
The draft places Nagarahole Tiger Reserve in Mysore district and Kodagu district and records an area of 843.96 sq. km for the reserve.
The proposal seeks to create a controlled area around Nagarahole Tiger Reserve where development would be managed more carefully.
An Eco-Sensitive Zone is not the same as the Tiger Reserve itself.
Land falling inside the ESZ does not automatically become part of the National Park or Tiger Reserve. Instead, the surrounding area is subject to a separate set of controls designed to reduce development pressure near an ecologically sensitive protected area.
Under the Nagarahole draft, businesses would broadly fall into one of three situations:
For a business owner, this means the first question should not simply be, "Is my land near Nagarahole?"
A more useful set of questions would be:
Those questions give a much clearer picture of the regulatory position.
The Gazette spends considerable space explaining why the landscape around Nagarahole needs protection.
Nagarahole forms part of the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve and is also part of the Mysore Elephant Reserve. It connects with other important wildlife landscapes, including Bandipur Tiger Reserve and Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary. The document also notes links through reserve forests towards the Brahmagiri landscape.
The area is also important from a water perspective. The reserve acts as a catchment for perennial streams and tributaries linked to the Kaveri, Lakshmanathirtha and Kabini rivers.
The Gazette records extensive floral and faunal diversity, including tiger, elephant, leopard, gaur, deer species, reptiles and hundreds of recorded bird species.
The concern, therefore, is not only what happens inside the Tiger Reserve. Development immediately outside a protected area can also affect wildlife movement, water bodies, forest edges, noise levels, traffic and habitat quality.
The proposed ESZ is meant to place tighter controls on such pressure while leaving room for compatible local, and economic activity.
It’s still a draft. S.O. 4862(E), dated 2 September 2026, has been published for public consideration. The Ministry has invited objections and suggestions before the proposal moves towards finalisation.
This distinction should remain clear throughout any business or legal assessment.
For example, it would be inaccurate at this stage to say:
The final notification may retain the draft as it is, amend individual provisions, correct drafting issues or change parts of the proposed framework.
Businesses should therefore treat the document seriously, but also keep its draft status in mind when making long-term decisions.
The Ministry has given interested persons an opportunity to submit objections or suggestions on the proposal.
The Gazette says submissions may be sent to:
The Secretary
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan
Jorbagh Road, Aliganj
New Delhi- 110003
The draft also mentions the email address:
esz-mef@nic.in
What is the consultation period?
The notification refers to 60 days from the date on which copies of the Gazette containing the notification are made available to the public.
That wording matters.
The Gazette does not simply say "60 days from 2 September 2026", so an exact last date should not be assumed without separately verifying when the Gazette copies were made available.
Who may want to review the draft?
The consultation may be especially relevant for:
A representation is more useful when it identifies a specific problem, such as a boundary issue, inconsistent figure, effect on an existing project or unclear wording.
The draft gives the proposed ESZ an area of 573.959 sq. km. It states that the zone will extend from 0 to 7.5 km around the boundary of Nagarahole Tiger Reserve.
The direction-wise figures given in the document are:
| Direction | Distance Mentioned in Draft |
| North | 1–6.9 km |
| North-East | 5.20 km |
| East | 7.4 km |
| South-East | 0 km |
| South | 0 km |
| South-West | 0 km |
| West | 1 km |
| North-West | 24.08 km* |
The 24.08 km entry does not appear consistent with the stated maximum ESZ extent of 7.5 km and needs clarification.
Why Is the ESZ Zero Kilometres in Some Directions?
The Gazette itself gives the reason.
It says the ESZ has been kept at zero kilometres towards the south-east, south and south-west because those directions meet the interstate boundary with Kerala.
How Many Villages Are Included?
The proposal covers 101 villages, either fully or partly, with a combined geographical area of 271.61 sq. km.
The notified reserve forest area within the proposed ESZ is given as 302.36 sq. km. This does not mean every parcel of land in all 101 villages has the same regulatory position.
For a project-level decision, actual coordinates and the official boundary should be checked.
One figure in the draft deserves closer attention. The document describes the ESZ as extending from 0 to 7.5 km around Nagarahole Tiger Reserve.
Yet the direction table gives 24.08 km as the north-west extent.
These two figures do not appear to match.
The safest approach is not to "correct" the number on assumption.
Until MoEFCC clarifies the matter, businesses with projects in the north-western side of the proposed zone should check:
For land purchase, construction planning or project finance, relying only on the headline "7.5 km ESZ" may therefore be risky.
Location verification should be done with more than a simple online map search.
The Gazette provides several reference points for determining the proposed boundary:
A practical review should cover three levels
1. Village check
First see whether the village appears in Annexure IV.
This is only the first filter.
2. Coordinate check
Match the project site's actual latitude and longitude with the proposed ESZ boundary information.
3. Activity check
Once location is established, determine how the business activity is classified.
This order is useful because a project may be geographically affected but still fall under a regulated or promoted category rather than a prohibited one.
For businesses making large investments, an environmental due diligence review before land acquisition or construction can help identify such risks early.
The proposal has been issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.
The draft also refers to several other legal and regulatory frameworks.
These include:
This means ESZ compliance would sit alongside existing approvals rather than replace them.
A project may still have to consider matters such as:
The exact combination depends on the project.
The Zonal Master Plan is central to how development may eventually be managed inside the proposed ESZ.
The draft says the Karnataka Government would prepare this plan within two years from publication of the final notification in the Official Gazette.
The two-year period therefore does not automatically start from 2 September 2026.
Which departments would be involved?
The plan is to be prepared in consultation with departments dealing with:
What would the Zonal Master Plan cover?
The plan is expected to address:
It would also act as a reference point for the Monitoring Committee once approved.
For a developer, this is important because the final ESZ notification may provide the broad rule, while the Zonal Master Plan could provide more detailed location-level development controls.
The draft gives some comfort to approved existing uses, but it should not be read too widely. It says the Zonal Master Plan should not restrict approved existing land use, infrastructure and activities unless specifically provided for in the notification.
That is different from saying every existing activity can continue unchanged.
For instance:
Existing businesses should review
A compliance gap assessment can be useful where an existing unit has several approvals issued at different times.
The draft proposes restrictions on converting certain categories of land for intensive development.
Forests, horticulture areas, agricultural areas, parks and open spaces earmarked for recreation are not proposed to be freely converted into:
Certain conversions may still be considered for local residential and related needs, but these are linked to the recommendation of the Monitoring Committee and prior approval from the competent authority.
The draft mentions activities such as:
The practical point is simple: land ownership and development permission are not the same thing.
A buyer may own the land but still need to check whether the intended use is permitted at that location.
This is one of the most useful parts of the draft for businesses.
| Category | Broad Meaning | Examples |
| Prohibited | Activity proposed not to be allowed, subject to stated exceptions | Mining, polluting industries, new sawmills, brick kilns |
| Regulated | Activity may be allowed subject to conditions, permissions or applicable law | Hotels, construction, roads, industries, water extraction |
| Promoted | Activity the proposed framework seeks to encourage | Organic farming, rainwater harvesting, renewables, green technology |
The draft identifies several activities that would not be permitted within the proposed ESZ. These include mining, polluting industries, waste-related activities and certain other commercial activities.
1. Commercial Mining, Quarrying and Crushing
The draft proposes a ban on new and existing mining, quarrying, and crushing activities, except in limited cases involving the domestic needs of bona fide local residents.
It also refers to multiple Supreme Court orders relating to mining.
2. Polluting Industries
The proposal says no new polluting industries should be set up inside the ESZ and expansion of existing polluting industries should not be permitted.
3. Other Activities Listed as Prohibited
The draft also places the following in the prohibited category:
Each activity should still be read together with the exact wording and any exception attached to it.
A regulated activity is not necessarily prohibited. The draft places a much wider group of activities in this category.
New commercial hotels and resorts face specific distance restrictions near the Tiger Reserve.
Commercial construction is restricted within the specified inner area, while local residential, infrastructure and other specified activities receive different treatment.
Small-scale, service and certain agro-based industries may be permitted subject to classification and competent-authority approval.
Tree cutting on forest, government, revenue or private land is linked to prior permission from the competent State authority.
Electrical lines, telecom towers, optical-fibre cables, pipelines, civic infrastructure and roads remain subject to regulation and mitigation measures.
Commercial extraction of surface and groundwater and use of open wells or bore wells are also placed under regulatory control.
The draft additionally covers:
Not every economic activity receives restrictive treatment.
The proposal actively encourages:
Businesses should, however, avoid reading "promoted" as "automatically approved". Land, construction, pollution and sector-specific approvals may still be required.
Tourism receives detailed treatment in the proposal. The draft says that no new hotel or resort should be allowed within one kilometre from the Tiger Reserve boundary or up to the extent of the ESZ, whichever is nearer, apart from specified small temporary eco-tourism structures.
Beyond one-kilometre, new hotels and resorts would be tied to pre-defined eco-tourism areas under the Tourism Master Plan.
New tourism activity and expansion of existing tourism businesses would also need to follow relevant MoEFCC and National Tiger Conservation Authority guidelines.
What should a hotel or resort developer check?
Before buying land or preparing a project report, it would be sensible to review:
For hospitality projects, environmental due diligence should ideally happen before major expenditure rather than after construction planning is complete.
The draft takes a stricter view of new commercial construction near the Tiger Reserve.
It proposes that no new commercial construction should be allowed within one kilometre from the Tiger Reserve boundary or up to the ESZ limit, whichever is nearer.
However, the provision also recognises certain local needs.
These include, subject to applicable conditions:
Beyond one kilometre, the draft says construction would be regulated according to the Zonal Master Plan.
Therefore, saying "all construction is prohibited within one kilometre" would be misleading. The type of construction matters.
The draft makes a clear distinction between polluting and non-polluting industries.
Polluting Industries
The English text says:
Businesses planning expansion should therefore pay close attention to how the final notification treats existing industrial units.
Non-Polluting Industries
Non-polluting industries receive a more favourable position, subject to the CPCB classification referred to in the draft.
A company should not simply decide for itself that its activity is non-polluting.
Classification should be checked against the relevant regulatory framework.
Small-Scale, Service and Agro-Based Industries
The regulated-activity table also refers to:
These may be permitted by the competent authority subject to the applicable conditions.
For MSMEs, this distinction could be important because the proposal is not a blanket industrial ban.
Mining and quarrying receive particularly strict treatment.
The draft proposes that new and existing minor and major mineral operations, stone quarrying and crushing units should be prohibited, apart from the limited local domestic-use exception mentioned in the document.
The wording in the activity table uses "immediate effect", but there is an important legal caution: the document itself is still a draft.
It would therefore be unsafe to describe this draft alone as having finally brought the Nagarahole ESZ mining ban into permanent force.
Mining leaseholders, quarry operators and related businesses should review the final notification carefully once issued and separately consider the Supreme Court orders referred to in the Gazette.
Real estate projects need a land-use and construction review, while infrastructure projects are more commonly placed under regulated activity.
The draft allows several forms of infrastructure subject to mitigation measures and applicable law, including:
Underground cabling is specifically encouraged.
Hill slopes receive additional protection. The Zonal Master Plan is expected to identify areas where construction should not be permitted, and the draft states that construction should not take place on existing steep slopes or slopes with a high degree of erosion.
For developers, an early land and project compliance assessment can help identify whether environmental restrictions make a site unsuitable before substantial capital is committed.
The proposed ESZ does not create a separate replacement for India's wider pollution-control system.
Several existing environmental requirements continue to matter.
The draft links air-pollution control with the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and applicable rules.
Noise control is linked with the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules referred to in the Gazette.
Businesses generating substantial noise may therefore need to consider both normal pollution requirements and the added sensitivity of the ESZ location.
Untreated discharge receives strict treatment.
For treated wastewater, the draft encourages recycling and reuse and links discharge to applicable standards.
The proposal links solid-waste handling to the rules cited in the Gazette and restricts burning, incineration and landfill establishment within the ESZ.
Biomedical waste is separately addressed, including restrictions on common treatment facilities, or incineration within the ESZ.
The draft also cross-refers to plastic-waste requirements.
Construction projects would have to consider both ESZ construction restrictions and C&D waste requirements.
The Gazette separately refers to e-waste management as well.
Where businesses have multiple environmental approvals, environmental compliance services can help bring land-use, pollution, waste and project-level obligations into one review rather than checking each approval in isolation.
The Monitoring Committee is proposed to play a screening and referral role.
Projects Covered by the EIA Notification
Activities falling within the Schedule to the EIA Notification referred to in the draft would be examined on the basis of site-specific conditions.
Where required, the matter would be referred to MoEFCC for prior Environmental Clearance under that framework.
This does not mean that every project inside the ESZ requires Environmental Clearance.
The project's category under the EIA framework still matters.
Activities Not Covered by the EIA Schedule
Activities outside the EIA Schedule may still be reviewed by the Monitoring Committee and referred to the appropriate authority where necessary.
Businesses uncertain about their category may need EIA compliance support or environmental clearance services before filing applications or finalising project design.
The draft places specific safeguards around tribal land.
It says tribal land should not be used for commercial or industrial development without prior approval under applicable State law and compliance with Article 244 of the Constitution and the forest-rights legislation referred to in the notification.
This becomes relevant for developers because title documents alone may not always settle every question.
A project can have issues connected with:
Each should be checked separately where applicable.
The draft proposes a dedicated Monitoring Committee. Its membership includes representatives from:
What Would the Monitoring Committee Do?
Its proposed role includes:
How Long Would the Committee Continue?
The draft gives the committee a tenure of three years or until reconstitution, after which the State Government would constitute the subsequent committee.
Annual Action Taken Report
The committee would also submit an annual report.
Annexure VI asks for details on:
The period before approval of the Zonal Master Plan may be especially sensitive for tourism projects.
The draft says tourism development or expansion outside forest land may be considered by regulatory authorities based on site-specific scrutiny and Monitoring Committee recommendation.
At the same time, the same provision contains restrictive language concerning new hotels, resorts and commercial-establishment construction during this period.
Businesses should therefore avoid two assumptions.
First, they should not assume that no Zonal Master Plan means there are no restrictions.
Second, they should not treat the current draft wording as a final legal position until MoEFCC publishes the final notification.
| Business/Stakeholder | Likely Concern | What Should Be Checked |
| Hotels and Resorts | Distance-based development restrictions | ESZ boundary, 1 km rule, Tourism Master Plan |
| Industrial Units | Polluting/non-polluting classification | CPCB category, expansion plans, pollution approvals |
| Construction Companies | Commercial construction controls | Location, project type, Zonal Master Plan |
| Real Estate Developers | Land conversion and development restrictions | Land use, coordinates, construction category |
| Infrastructure Companies | Mitigation and approval requirements | Project alignment, environmental approvals |
| Mining/Quarrying Units | Strict proposed prohibition | Lease location, ESZ boundary, court orders |
| MSMEs | Classification of activity | Pollution category and competent authority |
| Landowners | Future development potential | Exact boundary and permitted land use |
| Agriculture/Horticulture Businesses | Water use and land-use changes | Local activity status, extraction permissions |
The proposal has a clear conservation objective. If implemented effectively, the framework could help:
The success of such a framework, however, depends heavily on boundary clarity, and consistent implementation.
The biggest challenge may not always be an outright prohibition. For many projects, the difficulty will be figuring out exactly which rule applies.
1. Boundary Uncertainty
The 0-7.5 km statement and the 24.08 km north-west entry create a clear question for location assessment.
2. Land-Use Limitations
A site may be privately owned but still face restrictions on conversion or development.
3. Expansion Constraints
An existing unit may be allowed to continue but face restrictions if it wants to expand.
4. Additional Project Scrutiny
A project may need review by the Monitoring Committee or another environmental authority.
5. Design Changes
Hotels, roads, buildings or infrastructure may need to be redesigned to comply with environmental conditions.
6. Additional Due Diligence
Investors may need deeper checks before acquiring land.
7. Approval Coordination
A project may involve the ESZ framework, pollution-control consents, environmental clearance, land approvals and sector-specific permissions at the same time.
For such cases, environmental regulatory consulting can help a business understand the approval sequence instead of treating each requirement separately.
Both sides of the issue deserve consideration.
Why the Environmental Controls May Be Necessary?
Nagarahole is a major wildlife and forest landscape.
The Gazette records its ecological connection with tiger, elephant and forest habitats, along with important river systems.
Uncontrolled mining, polluting industries or intensive commercial construction close to such an area can create lasting effects that are difficult to reverse.
Restrictions on high-impact activities therefore have a clear environmental rationale.
Where Businesses May Face Practical Difficulty
Businesses need regulatory certainty before investing.
A hotel developer, industrial unit or land buyer needs to know the exact boundary and what can legally be built at a particular site.
Ambiguous figures, inconsistent dates or different wording between the Hindi and English texts make that job harder.
A balanced final framework would therefore need both:
The proposal also points towards activities that may fit better with the environmental character of the region.
Potential areas include:
There may also be greater demand for:
These are possible business opportunities, not guaranteed markets or government incentives.
The draft contains several issues that should ideally be clarified.
1. 0-7.5 km vs 24.08 km North-West Extent: The body of the notification describes an ESZ of up to 7.5 km. The direction table, however, records 24.08 km for the north-west.
For land and project decisions, that is a material difference.
2. CPCB Classification Date Differs: The English version refers to CPCB industry-classification guidelines issued in January, 2025. The Hindi table refers to February 2025 for polluting industries, while another Hindi entry refers to February 2026 for non-polluting small industries. That date should be verified officially.
3. Thermal Project Wording Is Not Fully Aligned: The English table refers to thermal, and major hydroelectric projects. The corresponding Hindi passage shown in the Gazette refers to a major hydroelectric project without the same explicit thermal wording.
This is another point that deserves clarification in the final text.
Businesses do not need to wait for the final notification before reviewing their exposure.
A useful sequence would be:
Step 1: Confirm the Project Location
Use actual coordinates, and the proposed boundary information.
Step 2: Check the Village
See whether the village appears in the draft annexure.
Step 3: Identify the Activity Category
Check whether the activity is:
Step 4: Review Existing Approvals
Check:
Step 5: Review Future Expansion
Do not assume an existing project, and its proposed expansion receive the same treatment.
Step 6: Verify Pollution Classification
Industrial units should confirm their regulatory category.
Step 7: Check EIA Applicability
Do this separately. ESZ location alone does not automatically determine EC applicability.
Step 8: Review Construction and Tourism Restrictions
This is particularly relevant for hotels, resorts, real estate and tourism businesses.
Step 9: Record Genuine Concerns
If the draft directly affects an existing or planned project, prepare a fact-based representation during the consultation period.
Step 10: Watch for the Final Notification
Final investment and compliance decisions should be checked again once MoEFCC finalises the proposal.
| Review Area | Question to Ask | Why It Matters |
| Location | Is the site actually inside the proposed ESZ? | Determines whether the ESZ framework is relevant |
| Village | Is the village listed in Annexure IV? | Helps narrow the review |
| Coordinates | Does the actual site fall within mapped limits? | More reliable than approximate distance |
| Land Use | What is the approved present land use? | Conversion may be restricted |
| Activity | Prohibited, regulated or promoted? | Determines regulatory treatment |
| Construction | Is new commercial construction planned? | Distance conditions may apply |
| Tourism | Hotel, resort or tourism project? | Separate rules apply |
| Industry | Polluting or non-polluting category? | Industrial treatment differs |
| EIA | Does the project fall under the EIA framework? | EC requirement depends on project category |
| CTE/CTO | Are Pollution Control Board consents needed? | ESZ does not replace normal pollution approvals |
| Expansion | Is capacity or built-up area being increased? | Expansion can be treated separately |
| Water | Is groundwater/surface-water extraction proposed? | Water use is regulated |
| Waste | What waste streams will the project generate? | Separate waste rules apply |
| Consultation | Is there a direct concern with the draft? | Stakeholder comments may be submitted |
A business planning activity around Nagarahole may have to deal with more than one authority and more than one law.
Corpseed can provide environmental compliance services to help businesses understand where ESZ restrictions sit within the wider project-approval framework.
ESZ Applicability and Location Review
Corpseed can help review:
The purpose is to identify possible issues before a project moves too far into investment or construction.
Environmental Compliance Gap Assessment
For an existing business, a compliance gap assessment can check whether current approvals match the way the business is operating.
The review may cover:
Environmental Clearance and EIA Applicability Support
Where a project may fall within the EIA framework, Corpseed can assist with:
This should be treated as EIA compliance support, not as an assumption that every ESZ project needs Environmental Clearance.
Pollution Control Consent Support
Where applicable, businesses can seek assistance for:
A pollution control consent consultant can be particularly useful where an industrial project is also dealing with ESZ-related land or location questions.
Environmental Due Diligence for New Projects
Before buying land or investing in a project, businesses can undertake environmental due diligence services covering:
This may be especially relevant for real estate, industrial, tourism and infrastructure investments.
Tourism and Hospitality Compliance
For hotels, resorts, homestays and eco-tourism projects, Corpseed can assist with reviewing:
Regulatory Representation Support
Businesses directly affected by the draft may also need help organising an objection or suggestion.
Support can include:
Submission of a representation does not guarantee that the Ministry will accept the requested change.
Document Preview
Embedded reference document