Grant Of Land To Grow Trees Cannot Be Extended To Mean Title In Granted Land: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that if the land is granted only to grow trees, it cannot be treated as the grant of land itself.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit while dismissing an appeal against a single bench order refusing to declare that the title in the land belongs to the appellant said,

“In the case of Grant, ordinarily title to the land vests in the Grantee, at times subject to certain conditions violation of which may result into rescinding of the Grant. However, the grant of only a right to grow trees on the land cannot be treated as the grant of land itself.”

It added, “The learned Single Judge having examined all the Revenue Records and the so-called Grant Order has rightly come to a conclusion that the subject-land as such has not been granted, although only right to grow trees is accorded.”

Court held that title to the land in question, despite making over a particular right in favour of Appellants' ancestors, remains intact with the government. "What has been constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300A is the right to property, in other words, the State can take private property for public purposes on payment of compensation.”

It added, “This very idea of acquisition envisages “private property” and therefore the question of the government acquiring its own property being an anathema to logic & law does not arise. The power of eminent domain which is an attribute of the government avails against the private property and not of the property of the said government, subject to all just exceptions into which the argued case of the Appellants does not fit.”

Further it held “Whatever trees are grown in the subject-land belong to the ownership of the so-called Grantees and therefore compensation needs to be paid for the said trees grown in the subject-land if the Appellants have given up their right over the trees. If they only have taken or permitted to take these trees, the question of paying any compensation would not arise.”

Accordingly it dismissed the appeal.

Appearance: Advocate Adaveeshaiah B for Appellant.

Additional Government Advocate Shweata Krishnappa for R1.

Advocate B.B Patil for R2 & R3.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 32

Case Title: Nanjundappa & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Appeal No 1174 OF 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order