New Delhi, Oct. 18 -- The Jharkhand government told the Supreme Court on Friday that practical challenges have emerged in notifying the Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary and has requested the court to modify its earlier order directing the state to notify the sanctuary across an area of 31,468.25 hectares. In an undertaking submitted to the court on Friday, chief secretary Avinash Kumar said that based on comprehensive field assessment and consultation with local communities, it will be practical to notify only an area of 24,941.64 hectares within the Saranda Forest Division. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justice K Vinod Chandran expressed apprehensions on accepting the state;s proposal as it gathered from the maps and documents presented by the state that the proposed area of over 24,000 hectares will fragment the forest at several places. The bench said, "If your alignment is accepted, there will be no continuity of forests." The court refused to pass any order on the application and posted the matter for hearing on October 27, the day when the court will reopen after the Diwali break. The proposal by the state to scale down the boundary limits of Saranda Sanctuary is the latest among a series of flip-flops before the court. The court is considering the issue in an application moved by Daya Shankar Srivastava in the TN Godavarman matter relating to protection of forests and wildlife. His application sought implementation of a July 12, 2022 order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) directing the state to notify the Saranda sanctuary measuring 31,468 hectares. The state application said, "After undertaking comprehensive field assessments and extensive consultations with local communities, tribal representatives, and relevant departments, certain practical challenges have emerged in declaring the entire Game Sanctuary area of 31,468.25 hectares as a Wildlife Sanctuary." Senior advocate K Parmeshwar assisting the court as amicus curiae questioned the state's latest move alleging that the decision is at the behest of the mining industry and not to protect the tribal and local village population. The state opposed this argument by pointing out that the area of 6,000 hectares sought to be excluded has got infrastructure, schools and other public amenities for tribal population staying there for years together. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the state said, "In between there are habitations. We can't throw them out. This court may inspect and find out if any mining is taking place. We are seeking an exemption for the 6000 hectares. Meanwhile let the remaining land of about 25,000 hectares be notified." He further informed the court that the ground situation is tense as following the news about the proposed notification of Wildlife Sanctuary, widespread protests are taking place by the local communities. "The Naxal insurgents in the region are stoking the fire and are threatening to turn the thus far peaceful agitation into a violent uprising for their vested interests," the state added in its application. The application further said, "This proposed area meets the requirements prescribed under Section 26A (1) (b) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and its declaration as a Wildlife Sanctuary would fully achieve the intended objectives of wildlife conservation while ensuring that no displacement or social distress is caused to vulnerable forest-dwellers, tribal communities and land settlors," the state said in its application. In the area to be left out, there is vital public infrastructure including road networks crucial for regional connectivity, educational institutions serving tribal and rural populations, as well as settled agricultural lands held under valid patta. The state admitted that declaration of the sanctuary across 31,000 hectares will restrict existing mining activities of SAIL and other entities in the eco sensitive zone (ESZ), proposed as 1 kilometer from the boundary of the sanctuary. Parmeshwar said, "Initially they said the entire 31,000 hectares can be notified as sanctuary and made a statement that no mining is taking place in this area. The attempt is to protect the mining industry. This is being done at the behest of only one sector. Let them make a statement that no mining will take place in the area of 6,000 hectares being excluded." The state informed the court that 31,000 hectares was as per the last Working Plan notified in 1968 but the said area contains facilities indispensable to the livelihood and cultural practices of local communities. On Friday, a local tribal community also sought to intervene claiming protection of their rights under the law. The court assured that rights available to communities under the Forest Rights Act will be protected. The court has struggled in the past with the state to comply with the NGT order. On April 29, the SC asked the state to complete all formalities for issuing the final notification within two months. The state dragged its feet by first seeking response from the Wildlife Institute of India and later setting up a committee for conducting "a comprehensive review of the boundary/area determination of the proposed sanctuary." The approach of the state made the court to remark it is being "taken for a ride" as it summoned the chief secretary on October 8 when an undertaking was sought within a week to comply with the past orders....