LI Network
Published on: January 20, 2024 at 11:13 IST
The Karnataka High Court recently emphasized that providing a right exclusively to grow trees on a piece of land should not be misconstrued as granting the land itself.
This clarification came during an intra-court appeal challenging a Single Judge’s decision denying compensation for the acquisition of a specific piece of land.
A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice Krishna S. Dixit, rendered the observation while reviewing the appeal against the Single Judge’s order.
The Court affirmed that, based on a thorough examination of Revenue Records and the Grant Order in question, the land, per se, had not been granted. Instead, only the right to cultivate trees on the land had been bestowed.
The Court stated, “Granting only the right to grow trees on the land cannot be treated as the grant of land itself.” It explained that in a typical land grant, the title to the land usually vests in the grantee, sometimes subject to specific conditions. However, when only the right to cultivate trees is conferred, it does not equate to a grant of the land itself.
The appellants contested the Single Judge’s decision, which had rejected their plea for compensation concerning the acquisition of the subject land.
The Division Bench, after considering arguments from both sides and reviewing the appeal documents, concurred with the Single Judge’s observations and declined to intervene in the matter.
The High Court underscored that despite the grant of a particular right to the appellants’ ancestors, the title to the subject land remained with the government.
The Court emphasized that Article 300A constitutionally guarantees the right to property, allowing the state to acquire private property for public purposes with compensation.
Additionally, the Court clarified that the power of eminent domain, inherent in the government, applies to private property and not to the property owned by the government itself. Therefore, the concept of the government acquiring its own property does not align with legal principles.
Concluding the matter, the Court held that any trees grown on the subject land belong to the purported grantees, and compensation should be paid for those trees if the appellants relinquish their rights. However, if the appellants have only permitted the use of the trees, compensation would not be applicable.
As a result, the High Court dismissed the appeal in the case titled Nanjundappa & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.