NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
IN W.P.No. 5000 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.T.N. VISHU KUMAR
S/O T R NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT THARIKERE TOWN,
KODI CAMP,LINGADA HALLI MAIN ROAD,
THARIKERE TALUK,KASABA,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.
2. SRI.B.M. THIPPESWAMY
S/O MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT BETTATHAVAREKERE VILLAGE,
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI,THARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.
3. SMT. VEENA
D/O T.R. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.32,36TH MAIN ROAD,
BTM 2ND STAGE,BENGALURU SOUTH,
RAJAJINAGAR,BENGALURU-560076.
4. SRI H.M. MALLIKARJUN
S/O LATE K.M. MAHESWARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT HALIGERE VILLAGE, KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577138.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR FOR
SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND
COMPETENT AUTHORITY
NATIONAL HIGHWAY 206,
TUMKUR, SHIMOGA CIRCLE,
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
2. UNION OF INDIA
REP BY SECRETARY TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF ROAD
TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,
NEW DELHI-110001.
3. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
CHIEF OF FOREST FRCE ARANYA BAVAN,
MALLESHWARAM,BENGALURU-56000..
4. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT
TUMAKURU.
HAVING OFFICE AT 'SRI RAKSHA'
80FT ROAD, MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR,
NEAR KRISHNA COLLEGE,
BATAWADI, TUMKURU-572 103.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHILPA G.SHAH., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND 4,
SRI.H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R-2;
SRI.V.G.BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL ALONGWITH SMT.V.HEMALATHA.AGA FOR R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED AWARD DATED:25.04.2022 IN No.SLAO/CA/NH-
2002/AWD/SANDALWOOD/2021-22 AND AWARD NOTICE
DATED 27.06.2022 No.SLAO ANND CA/SMG/NHAI-
2006/CR/SUP/2022-23 PASSED BY THE R-1 AS PER
ANNEXURE-A AND B, BQ, B2, AND B3 IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE
PROPERTY, ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 19.12.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CAV ORDER
Table of Contents
I. Facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions............. 10
II. Submissions of the Petitioners ..................................... 30
III. Submissions of the Respondents:................................. 32
IV. Question for consideration in this writ petition: .............. 35
V. Legal position under the NH Act and the 2013 Act
regarding determination of compensation, especially
in the matter of valuing sandalwood trees existing
on the acquired lands ...................................................... 35
VI. Legal position under the KH Act regarding
determination of compensation, especially
in the matter of valuing sandalwood trees existing
on the acquired lands ...................................................... 44
VII. Procedure followed by the competent authority
in this case relating to the determination of the value
of the sandalwood trees................................................... 51
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
VIII. Re: the existence of an alternative remedy of
approaching the Arbitrator under the Act ........................... 57
IX. The manner of valuing a sandalwood tree
which is less than 15 years and in which the
heartwood is yet to be formed .......................................... 59
X. Other submissions advanced by the Learned Counsel ...... 85
I. FACTS LEADING TO THE FILING OF THESE WRIT
PETITIONS:
1. There are two sets of writ petitions amongst this batch
of writ petitions, which relate to the valuation of
sandalwood trees standing in the lands which are
acquired under the provisions of the National
Highways Act, 1956 ("the NH Act") and under the
provisions of the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964 ("the
KH Act").
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
2. The lands acquired under the NH Act are situated in
Kadur and Tarikere Taluks of Chikkamagaluru District
and the lands acquired under the KH Act are situated
in Srinivasapura Taluk of Kolar District.
3. The facts in the writ petitions pertaining to the NH Act
are that, on 27.07.2016, the Government of India
issued a notification under Section 3A of the NH Act
declaring its intention to acquire land for the
formation of National Highway No. 206 in the stretch
of land from Km 132.00 to Km 174.00 (Tumkur-
Honnavara section) in the district of Chikkamagaluru.
4. After hearing the objectors and upon considering their
objections, the competent authority disallowed the
same and submitted a report to the Union
Government. The Union Government, on receipt of the
same, issued a declaration on 26.07.2017 under
Section 3D(1) of the NH Act declaring that the land
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
specified therein should be acquired for the
aforementioned purpose.
5. An extent of 90.7695 hectare was declared to be
needed for said purpose under the declaration, which
was situated in the villages of Nagadiyathkava of
Kadur Taluk, Chokanahalli, Haliyur and Machenahalli of
Tarikere Taluk in Chikkamagaluru District.
6. As a consequence of Section 3D(2) of the NH Act,
these lands stood vested absolutely in the Central
Government free from all encumbrances.
7. The lands involved in these writ petitions are narrated
in the below table for the sake of convenience.
Sl. Case No. Land details
No.
1 WP.16604/2022 Sy.No.28/9 in Tarikere Taluk,
Chikkamagaluru District.
2 WP.21824/2022 Sy.No.72/166/7P111in
Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
3 WP.21844/2022 Sy.No.28/33,Sy.No.28/13
Sy.No.28/14 in Tarikere Taluk,
Chikkamagaluru.
4 WP.5000/2023 Sy.No.28/15,Sy.No.28/22,Sy.No.2
8/34 and Sy.No.28/17in Tarikere
Taluk, Chikkamagaluru.
8. On 16.09.2017, the petitioner in W.P. No.16604/2022
submitted a claim to the competent authority to the
effect that in his plot of 01.04 guntas in Sy. No. 28/9,
he had raised 22 sandalwood trees after purchasing
the land from one Mallikarjuna for Rs.12 lakhs. He
stated that he had the expectation of earning at least
one crore rupees from said sandalwood trees and he
requested the authority to pay him a sum of Rs.1.10
crores as compensation.
9. It appears that on 16.08.2019, the competent
authority addressed a letter to the Deputy
Conservator of Forests stating that the sandalwood
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
trees in the lands bearing Sy.Nos.28/9 to 17, 28/5,
28/8 and 22 to 23, 24 and 31/4 to 10 of Haliyur
village had not been valued and had requested him to
evaluate the same and submit a report.
10. On 31.08.2019, the Project Director of the NHAI
addressed a letter to the Deputy Conservator of
Forests requesting evaluation of the sandalwood trees
which were coming within the PROW of NH-206 in Sy.
Nos.28/9 to 17, 28/5, 28/8 and 22 to 23, 24 and 31/4
to 10 of Haliyur village, as requested by the
competent authority in its letter dated 16.08.2019. In
this letter, it is also indicated that the Government-
approved valuator had stated that evaluation of the
sandalwood trees was required to be done by the
Forest Department.
11. As the matter stood thus, as per the requirement
under Section 3G of the NH Act, the competent
authority, after considering the claims of the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
interested persons, proceeded to determine the
amount payable as compensation in accordance with
the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 ("the 2013 Act") by his
award dated 27.09.2019. The competent authority
held that a sum of Rs.6,32,076/- was to be paid as
the market value of the land for the lands acquired in
Haliyur village. He also held that a multiplicative factor
of 1.5 would be applicable as Haliyur was within the 5
kms radius of Tarikere.
12. In respect of trees available on the land, the
competent authority stated as follows:
"(14) vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ/ CgÀtå ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À ªÀiË®å ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ:
F d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À°è §gÀĪÀ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀqÀĪÀ
d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À°è §gÀĪÀ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ ¨É¼ÉUÀ¼ÁzÀ vÉAUÀÄ, CrPÉ,
ªÀiÁªÀÅ, ¸À¥ÉÆÃl, EvÁå¢UÀ½UÉ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ ªÀiË®å ªÀiÁ¥À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß
ªÀiÁr ¸ÀPÁðj ¤AiÀiÁªÀiÁªÀ½AiÀÄAvÉ gÁ¦ÖçÃAiÀÄ ºÉzÁÝj
¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀªÀgÀÄ £ÉëĹzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ ªÀiË®åªÀiÁ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, ªÀiË®åªÀiÁ¥À£À ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß AiÉÆÃd£Á
¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ gÁ¦ÖçÃAiÀÄ ºÉzÁÝj ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ
²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ(vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ)gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄîĸÀ» ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ CªÁqïð£À°è
¸ÉÃj¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
ºÀ½AiÀiÁgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÀÄgÀ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÀ/CgÀtå ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À
ªÀiË®åªÀiÁ¥À£ÀzÀ°è ¸À.£ÀA 42/9 PÉÌ ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À ªÀiË®åªÀiÁ¥À£À
£ÉqÉ¢zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ¸À.£ÀA gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ ºÉzÁÝj 206 gÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ
CUÀ°ÃPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¨sÀƸÁé¢Ã£ÀUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 42/9 gÀ
ªÀiË®åªÀiÁ¥À£ÀzÀ°è n. JªÀiï. C±ÉÆÃPïPÀĪÀiÁgï ©£ï
ªÀÄtÂZÀAzï £ÉºÁgï JA¢zÀÄÝ F ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ 3r
C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ¸À.£ÀA.42/1 gÀ°èzÀÄÝ EzÉà UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA
DVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj UÁæªÀÄzÀ Schedule-1 £À°è Not
identified JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ «vÀgÀuÉ
¸ÀAzÀ§ðzÀ°è ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ «vÀj¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ."
13. As could be seen from the above, the competent
authority did not award any sums separately for the
sandalwood trees though he had requested the Forest
Department for evaluation of trees.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
14. The competent authority awarded -- in all, for the
tress available in the extent of 11.895 hectares -- a
sum of Rs.1,35,44,672/- as compensation.
15. On 08.11.2019, the Deputy Conservator of Forests
responded to the request of the Project Director dated
31.08.2019 and addressed a letter to the Chief
Conservator of Forests stating that there were 2523
sandalwood trees in the abovementioned survey
numbers and that these trees were about 7 years old,
with no official guidelines to value the same. He also
referred to an agreement that had been entered into
between Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd.
("KSDL") and T.N. Vijaykumar in which also the girth
of sandalwood that would be available at the time of
felling had not been indicated.
16. On 30.11.2019, the Chief Conservator of Forests
addressed a letter to the Deputy Conservator asking
him to correspond with the KSDL, since T.N. Vijay
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
Kumar had entered into an agreement with it and
determine the value at his level itself.
17. As a consequence, the Deputy Conservator addressed
a letter dated 04.12.2019 to KSDL and requested
them to evaluate the sandalwood trees existing on the
aforementioned lands. He also enclosed a list
containing the number of sandalwood trees that
existed in said lands.
18. It appears that KSDL had addressed a letter dated
13.12.2019 to the Deputy Conservator of Forests
stating that the valuation of the sandalwood tree,
meeting the requirements stated in the said letter,
would not be less than Rs.3,71,641/-and
Rs.10,57,666/- after 30 years, as per the expert's
opinion. This was, in turn, sent across to the Project
Director, NHAI by a letter dated 17.12.2019.
19. The Project Director, in turn, addressed a letter dated
19.12.2019 to M/s. G.S. Angadi & Co. narrating the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
correspondence with the Deputy Conservator and
ending with the correspondence with the KSDL and
asked them to verify on site and work out the
valuation of 2523 sandalwood trees, which were 7
years old, and submit a valuation report. M/s.G.S.
Angadi, however, replied on 06.03.2020 stating that
the evaluation of sandalwood trees could be done only
by the Forest Department of the MSIL.
20. It appears that on 10.06.2020, the Project Director,
NHAI had given oral instructions to the competent
authority and in pursuance of the same, he visited the
spot and had found that there were 924 big plants and
981 small plants i.e., totally 1905 in Sy. No.28/8 and
its hissas; and 663 big plants and 533 small plants
i.e., totally 1196 in Sy.Nos.31/4 to 31/9. He, however,
stated that the age of the trees could not be
ascertained and enclosed the video made of the spot
inspection. He also stated that the landloser had
produced a bill for the year 2012 for having purchased
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
sandalwood saplings from KSDL. It was also stated
that Vishnukumar had entered into agreements with
landowners of 15 land owners of various hissas of Sy.
No.28 wherein it was found that there were 1905
trees as per the counting made by the competent
authority and 1489 as per the counting made by the
Thasildar.
21. He also stated that Vishnukumar had purchased
certain lands in Sy.Nos.31/4 to 31/9 and had
commenced growing of sandalwood trees and there
was also a civil litigation pending in respect of that
land. He also stated that there were 1196 trees in
these lands and as per the counting made by the
SLAO, the number was 1196 and as per the counting
of the Thasildar, it was 951.
22. The Project Director, thereafter, addressed a letter
dated 25.06.2020 to the Director of Institute of Wood
and Technology requesting them to value the
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
sandalwood trees so as to enable the payment of
compensation. The Institute of Wood Science and
Technology, in turn, replied on 24.07.2020 stating that
the Institute was only engaged in research work and
would be unable to assess the value of the
sandalwood trees.
23. As the matter stood thus, KSDL addressed a letter to
Vishnukumar on 15.10.2020 stating that the valuation
made by its officer as per the letter dated 13.12.2019
was not valid and that it was withdrawing their letter
dated 13.12.2019. Thus, the valuation arrived at by
the KSDL -that the trees would have a value of not
less than Rs.3.7 lakhs and Rs.10.57 lakhs in 2047 -
was stated to be invalid.
24. During the pendency of this correspondence regarding
the valuation of the sandalwood trees, Prathap Kumar
K.R. had filed W.P.No.8691/2020 challenging the
award dated 27.09.2019, insofar as it related to the
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
extent that it did not determine the compensation
payable for the sandalwood trees existing in the lands.
A co-ordinate Bench of this Court disposed of said writ
petition by an order dated 20.10.2020 directing the
respondents to consider Prathap Kumar's claim for
compensation in respect of the sandalwood trees in
terms of Annexures-L & M of that writ petition i.e., the
valuation made by the KSDL.
25. The competent authority challenged the said order by
filing an appeal in W.A.No.8621/2020. In this intra-
court appeal, the Division Bench modified the order of
the learned single judge and disposed of the appeal on
22.10.2021 in the following terms:
"8.We have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the record. Admittedly, the appellant is the
competent authority to assess the value of the
trees and his jurisdiction to determine the value of
the trees and his jurisdiction to determine the value
of the trees cannot be fettered. Undoubtedly,
respondent No.1 is entitled to compensation in
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
respect of the sandalwood trees. Therefore, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that
the appellant shall consider the claim of the
respondent No.1 with regard to value of the
sandalwood trees in accordance with law. It will be
open to respondent No.1 to place the material
before the appellant in support of his claim for
compensation, which shall be duly considered by
the appellant. It is clarified that this court has not
expressed any opinion with regard to merits of the
claim of the parties. The interim order granted on
10.07.2020 by learned Single Judge shall continue
till claim of the respondent No.1 for compensation
is adjudicated. The appellant shall make an
endeavour to adjudicate the claim within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of the order passed today. To the aforesaid
extent, the order passed by the learned Single
Judge is modified"
26. It appears that this issue regarding the valuation of
sandalwood trees was also the subject matter of
consideration by the Government and ultimately, the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on consideration
of the matter proceeded to issue Official Memorandum
(OM) on 10.02.2022 holding that for lands which were
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
acquired and which contained sandalwood trees, the
compensation payable would be in the following
terms:
"DzÉñÀ
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀAvÉ, ««zsÀ AiÉÆÃd£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
C£ÀĵÁÖ£ÀUÉƽ¸ÀĪÁUÀ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è
PÀrAiÀÄ®àlÖ ²æÃUÀAzsÀ VqÀUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ
¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¹zÉ.
PÀæ.¸ÀA. ²æÃUÀAzsÀ VqÀzÀ ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì ¥ÀæwAiÉÆAzÀÄ ²æÃUÀAzsÀ VqÀPÉÌ
Sl.No. Age of the Sandal Plant ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ªÉÆÃvÀÛ
(gÀÆ.UÀ¼À°è)
Compensation amount
per sandalwood plant
(in Rs.)
1 1 ªÀµÀð ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄzÁzÀ 420.00
2 2 ªÀµÀð ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄzÁzÀ 513.00
3 3 ªÀµÀð ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄzÁzÀ 596.00
4 4 ªÀµÀð ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄzÁzÀ 676.00
5 5 ªÀµÀð ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄzÁzÀ 762.00
6 6 ªÀµÀð ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄzÁzÀ 845.00
7 7 ªÀµÀð ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄzÁzÀ 928.00
8 8 ªÀµÀð ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄzÁzÀ 1011.00
9 9 ªÀµÀð ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄzÁzÀ 1094.00
10 10 ªÀµÀð ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄzÁzÀ 1177.00
(F zÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥Àæw ºÉPÉÖÃgïUÉ UÀjµÀÖ 400 ¸À¹UÀ½UÉ
C£ÀéAiÀĪÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ)
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤ÃUÀ¢ü¥Àr¹zÀ zÀgÀUÀ¼À®èzÉÃ, ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄgÀUÀ½AzÀ
vÉUÉAiÀÄ®àlÖ ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð ªÀiË®åªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ
gÉÊvÀjUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw¹zÉ.
ªÉÄð£ÀAvÉ ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¹zÀ ²æÃUÀAzsÀ VqÀUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ
ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ J¸ï.J¸ï.Dgï. zÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ ¥Àæw ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ
¸À¹AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨É¼É¸À®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉUÉ vÀUÀ®ÄªÀ ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼À DzsÁgÀzÀ
ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ ºÀvÀÛ£Éà ªÀµÀðzÀªÀgÉUÀÆ ²æÃUÀAzsÀ
ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨É¼É¸À®Ä ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV ªÀµÀðªÁgÀÄ zÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß
¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ, gÉÊvÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀéAvÀ d«Ää£À°è
²æÃUÀAzsÀ VqÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÁAiÀÄ®Ä CUÀvÀåvÉUÀ£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV PÁA¥ËAqï
¤ªÀiÁðt, vÀAw ¨É𠤪ÀiÁðt, ¨ÉÆÃgïªÉ¯ï ºÁQ¸À®Ä vÀUÀ®ÄªÀ
ªÉZÀÑ, ºÀ¤ ¤gÁªÀj ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¸À®PÀgÀuÉUÀ¼À Rjâ¸À®Ä vÀUÀ®ÄªÀ
ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼À£ÀÄß EzÀgÀ°è ¸ÉÃjgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
¸À»/-
¥ÀæzsÁ£À ªÀÄÄRå CgÀtå ¸ÀAgÀPÀëuÁ¢üPÁj
(CgÀtå ¥ÀqÉ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀÄ)"
27. The competent authority, on the basis of this order
dated 10.02.2022, proceeded to pass an order
determining the compensation payable to the
sandalwood trees at Rs.845 per tree amounting to
Rs.21,31,935/- and proceeded to award the solatium
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
at 100% and thus ordered the payment of a total sum
of Rs.42,63,870/-.
28. The petitioners -- being aggrieved by this order
determining compensation (and also the individual
awards for the sandalwood trees standing in their
lands) as well as the order of the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests (on the basis of which the
impugned award was passed) -- have filed these writ
petitions. They are also seeking determination of
compensation strictly in accordance with Sections 28
& 29 of the 2013 Act.
29. The facts in the writ petition (WP.No.21824/2022)
pertaining to the KH Act are that, the lands acquired
in this writ petition is an extent of 20 guntas in
Sy.No.72/166/7P111 of Jodikothappanalli Village,
Srinivasapura Taluk in Kolar District.
30. The State Government issued a notification under
Section 15 of the KH Act declaring that the above
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
mentioned land along with several other lands were
required for developing State Highway No.82 from
Chintamani to the border of Andhra Pradesh.
31. By virtue of this notification, in law, there was a
conclusive declaration that the land was needed for
the purposes of developing State Highway No.82.
Pursuant to the declaration as required under Section
17 of the KH Act, notices were issued to the persons
interested in the land who are entitled for making a
claim for compensation to submit their claims. The
petitioner was served with such a notice dated
30.06.2021.
32. On 09.11.2021, the Tahsildar addressed a letter to the
Deputy Conservator of Forest requesting him to value
the sandalwood trees that were available in Sy.No.72.
In response, the Deputy Conservator of Forest
addressed a communication dated 30.11.2021 in
which he stated that there was no guideline value
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
fixed in respect of sandalwood trees and he was,
however, enclosing the list containing the number of
sandalwood trees and also list of other trees which
were available in 20 guntas of land. The enclosure to
this letter indicates that there were 109 sandalwood
trees in the extent of 20 guntas which were 1 to 3.5
meters in height and had girth from 0.1 meters to 0.2
meters. The list also stated that there were, in all, 153
different kinds of trees and the weight of the timber
was also stipulated. The age of the trees has been
indicated as being 8 or 9 years.
33. The petitioner's son addressed a communication dated
16.12.2021 to the Deputy Conservator of Forest once
again, requesting him to value the sandalwood trees
available in 20 guntas of land.
34. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.No.1096/2022 for
issuance of a mandamus to restrain the respondents
from cutting the existing sandalwood trees and other
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
trees. This Court by an order dated 28.03.2022
disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents
therein to consider the representation made by the
petitioner within a period of four weeks and until then,
they were prohibited from cutting/removing the
standing sandalwood trees. Thereafter, the petitioner
was communicated vide letter dated 11.05.2022 at
Annexure - T, in which the Tahsildar enclosed the list
of sandalwood trees along with valuation in respect of
each tree. This list contained a column indicating that
the value was fixed as per the OM of the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests dated 10.02.2022.
35. The authorities had valued the sandalwood trees on
the basis of the OM dated 10.02.2022, by which the
value of the sandalwood trees had been determined
depending on the age of the tree. On the basis of this
OM, the Deputy Conservator of Forest had addressed
a communication dated 28.04.2022 indicating the
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
valuation made by the Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests.
36. It is on the basis of these two letters that the trees
standing on the land of the petitioner had been
valued. As a consequence, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition challenging the OM dated
10.02.2022 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator
of Forest and also the consequential communication
made to the Tahsildar about the OM and ultimately,
the communication dated 18.06.2022 addressed to
the petitioner, whereby the petitioner has been
informed that the sandalwood trees existing on the
land which has been acquired has been valued as per
the OM dated 10.02.2022.
II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:
37. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners,
Sri. B.S. Sachin, and Sri. Vinod led by Senior Counsel
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy made the following
submissions:
i. The petitioners had invested huge sums of money
in planting and raising sandalwood trees with the
hope and expectation that it would fetch them
huge returns, and this was essentially because the
Government had come out with a policy to permit
raising sandalwood trees through which they were
promised huge returns after the trees were 15-20
years old.
ii. The competent authority had totally ignored the
potential that the sandalwood trees had over the
long term and had blindly followed the order
passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests, who also did not consider the huge
potential that the trees had.
iii. The competent authority ought to have accepted
the determination of the value of the sandalwood
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
trees as had been made by the KSDL, more so
when the said valuation had been accepted and
had been paid as compensation for lands which
had been acquired by KPTCL.
iv. The competent authority was bound to go by the
returns estimated in the brochures published by
the Forest Department and the KSDL to determine
the value of the sandalwood trees, and reliance
placed on the order of the Principal Chief
Conservator was wholly illegal.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
38. Sri. Bhanuprakash--learned Additional Advocate
General, Smt. Shilpa Shah for the NHAI, and Senior
Counsel Sri. D.R. Ravishankar for KSDL made their
submissions along the following lines:
i. The valuation made by the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest ought to be accepted since
no heartwood is formed in sandalwood trees for
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
the first ten years and the heartwood, which gives
the real value to a sandalwood tree, would be
formed only after 15 years.
ii. The sandalwood tree, till it attains the age
whereby heartwood becomes available, can only
be valued as timber and the Principal Chief
Conservator had therefore proceeded to estimate
the cost of cultivation and had arrived at the rates
in a scientific and rational manner.
iii. The claim of the petitioners that the sandalwood
trees should be valued as per the estimation of
KSDL cannot be accepted since KSDL itself had
withdrawn its valuation.
iv. The claim of the petitioners that the sandalwood
trees would fetch a great value in the future was
only speculative and the probability of the trees
surviving, including being felled by robbers, was a
definite possibility and hence based on such
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
speculative claims, their arguments cannot be
accepted.
v. Sri. D.R. Ravishankar candidly submitted that
KSDL had no expertise in determining the value of
a sandalwood tree and that it was only purchasing
sandalwood at the prices determined by the
Forest Department, even though they were
promoting growth of sandalwood trees and had
entered into agreements with prospective
planters.
vi. Smt. Shilpa Shah put forth the arguments that
the existence of the sandalwood plantations itself
was unacceptable since the documents produced
by the petitioners themselves proved that the
lands in question were vacant when they were
purchased by the petitioners and this purchase
was just before the lands were notified. She
submitted that the entire project was brought to a
standstill only because of this issue and the
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
interim orders granted in the writ petition was
causing NHAI huge financial repercussions.
IV. QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS WRIT
PETITION:
39. In light of the above, the singular determinative
question in this petition is:
What would be the manner of valuing
sandalwood trees for awarding
compensation when lands are acquired?
V. LEGAL POSITION UNDER THE NH ACT AND THE 2013
ACT REGARDING DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION,
ESPECIALLY IN THE MATTER OF VALUING
SANDALWOOD TREES EXISTING ON THE ACQUIRED
LANDS:
40. Section 3G(1) of the NH Act provides for
determination of compensation and stipulates that
there shall be paid an amount which is to be
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
determined by an order passed by the competent
authority. The competent authority is required to give
a public notice inviting claims from interested persons
and the notice should state particulars of the land and
fix a date for appearance before him for all the
persons interested. Section 3G(5) states that if the
amount determined by the competent authority is
unacceptable to either of the parties, the amount --
on an application by either of the parties -- is to be
determined by an arbitrator who is to be appointed by
the Central Government.
41. Section 3G(7), which would be relevant for this case,
states as follows:
"3G. Determination of amount payable as
compensation.--
(7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while
determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (5), as the case may be, shall take into
consideration--
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
(a) the market value of the land on the date of
publication of the notification under section 3A;
(b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person
interested at the time of taking possession of
the land, by reason of the severing of such land
from other land;
(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person
interested at the time of taking possession of
the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously
affecting his other immovable property in any
manner, or his earnings;
(d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the
land, the person interested is compelled to
change his residence or place of business, the
reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such
change."
42. As could be seen from the above, Section 3G(7)(c) is
in two parts. It contemplates --firstly, damages
sustained by the interested person by the reason of
acquiring lands which affects his other immovable
property and secondly, damages sustained by the
acquisition which injuriously affects his earnings.
Thus, the damages caused to the earnings of an
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
interested person when the lands are acquired under
the NH Act will have to be mandatorily assessed by
the competent authority.
43. Section 3J of the NH Act declares that nothing
contained in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would
apply to an acquisition under the NH Act. However,
though Section 105(1) of the 2013 Act declared that
the provisions of the 2013 Act would not apply to the
enactments specified in the IV Schedule, it made this
exclusion subject to the provisions of sub-section (3)
of Section 105. The NH Act has been included in the
IV Schedule and the provisions of the 2013 Act would
thus be inapplicable to the lands acquired under the
NH Act.
44. Section 105(3) of the 2013 Act enabled the Central
Government, by issuance of a notification, to direct
that the provisions relating to determination of
compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement --
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
being beneficial to the affected families -- should
apply. Thus, even though Section 105(1) declared that
the provisions of the 2013 Act would not be applicable
to acquisitions under the NH Act, the Central
Government by publishing a notification could make
the provisions of the 2013 Act applicable in aspects
relating to the determination of compensation.
45. Section 105 of the 2013 Act was sought to be
amended by issuing Ordinance Nos. 9 of 2014, 4 of
2015 and 5 of 2015 (which was valid till 31.08.2015).
By these ordinances, Sub-section (4) of Section 105
was omitted and Sub-section (3) was substituted, and
this substituted provision declared that the provisions
of the 2013 Act relating to the determination of
compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement should
apply to the enactments specified in the IV Schedule.
Thus, these ordinances mandated that the provisions
of the 2013 Act would apply for determination of
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
compensation even for lands acquired under the NH
Act.
46. However, the Replacement Bill relating to this
amendment was referred to the Joint Committee for
consideration and since the 2nd Ordinance was to lapse
on 31.08.2015, the Central Government issued an
order titled "The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015"
which came into effect from 01.09.2015. Clause 2 of
this order declared that the provisions of the 2013
Act, in relation to determination of compensation,
would apply to all the enactments specified in the IV
Schedule. Thus, even in respect of acquisitions under
the NH Act, the provisions of the 2013 Act would apply
in the matter of determination of compensation.
47. Section 26 of the 2013 Act lays down three criteria for
determining the market value of the land. In this case,
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
the competent authority has determined the market
value of the land and there is no dispute regarding the
same.
48. Section 27 of the 2013 Act, thereafter, states that
after the market value of the land is determined, the
competent authority is to calculate the total amount of
compensation to be paid to the owner by including the
value of all assets attached to the land.
49. Section 28 of the 2013 Act lays down the parameters
to be considered by the Collector in determination of
the award. For the purposes of this case, only the 1st,
2nd, 4th and 7th parameters would be relevant.
50. The 1st parameter laid down is the market value as
determined under Section 26 and to award the
amount in accordance with the I and II Schedules.
The 2nd parameter laid down is the damage sustained
by the interested person by the removal of the
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
standing crops and trees which may be on the land at
the time of taking possession of the land. The 4th
parameter is the damage sustained by reason of the
acquisition injuriously affecting the land-loser's other
movable or immovable property or, in any other
manner, his earnings. The 7th parameter laid down is
any other ground that may be equitable, just and
beneficial to the affected families.
51. Thus, apart from the market value of the land, the
competent authority would also be required to take
into consideration the value of the trees standing on
the land and also the injury caused to the land-loser
to his earnings by reason of the acquisition. The
Collector is also required to take into consideration
any other ground which is equitable, just and
beneficial to the affected families.
52. It is therefore clear that the value of the trees
standing on the crops, the loss in earnings of the land-
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
loser and any other ground which is equitable, just
and beneficial will have to be considered while
determining the amount payable as compensation.
53. Section 29 of the 2013 Act stipulates that while
determining the value of the assets attached to the
land, the competent authority may consider the use of
a specialist and, in particular, for the purpose of
determining the value of the trees attached to the
land use the services of an experienced person in the
field.
54. Thus, when it comes to determining the value of the
trees, the competent authority is required to utilise
the services of people experienced in that field.
55. Section 30 of the 2013 Act thereafter states that the
competent authority should, after determining the
total compensation payable as narrated above, impose
a solatium equivalent to 100% of the compensation
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
amount. Individual awards are also required to be
made detailing the particulars of the compensation
payable as specified in the Ist Schedule.
VI. LEGAL POSITION UNDER THE KH ACT REGARDING
DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION, ESPECIALLY IN THE
MATTER OF VALUING SANDALWOOD TREES EXISTING ON
THE ACQUIRED LANDS:
56. The KH Act has been enacted for providing restriction
of ribbon development of highways, for prevention
and removal of encroachment and also for
construction, maintenance and development of
highways apart from levy of betterment charges and
other incidental matters.
57. Chapter-II relates to declaration of highways,
appointment of Highway authorities and their powers
and functions.
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
58. Chapter-III relates to restriction of ribbon
development. Sections 7 to 14 are relatable to ribbon
development. Section 15 of the Act provides for
acquisition of land or for acquisition of right or interest
in the land. This provision basically states that if the
State Government is satisfied that any land required
for the purposes of a highway or any right or interest
of any person in any land required for said purposes,
it would be lawful for the State Government to publish
a notification and on such a notification being
published, the land is deemed to be needed for the
said purpose and any right or interest in the said land
would stand extinguished.
59. The notification would also mean that there was a
declaration which is conclusive to the effect that the
land was needed or that the right or interest was
required to be extinguished. On the declaration being
made, the highway authority is required to give a
notice stating that the State Government intends to
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
take possession of the land and invite the claims for
compensation all interest in the land. The notice is
required to state the particulars of the land and also
the right or interest in the land which is sought to be
extinguished, and to call upon the persons interested
to submit their claims.
60. Section 18 of the KH Act also empowers the highway
authorities to call upon any person to make a
statement indicating the name of every other person
possessing the interest in the land and when such a
requisition is made, that person is required to deliver
a statement.
61. Section 19 of the KH Act thereafter states that at any
time, after the declaration under Section 15 is issued,
the State Government could direct that possession of
lands specified in the notification be taken or the right
or interest specified therein be extinguished from the
date the direction is issued. Section 19 declares that
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
the land would vest absolutely in the State
Government free from all encumbrances. Thus,
essentially, on a declaration being made under Section
15, the Government could direct that possession of
lands be taken over and on such a direction being
issued under Section 19, the lands stand vested
absolutely in the Government free from all
encumbrances.
62. A conjoint reading of Sections 17 and 19 would
indicate that determination or payment of
compensation before taking possession of land is not
necessary.
63. Chapter-V of the Act deals with compensation. Section
26 stipulates that minimum damage be caused by the
authorities and compensation in the manner
prescribed under the Act should be paid to any person
who sustains damage in consequence of exercise of
such powers.
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
64. In respect of this case, we are concerned with Section
26(e) which deals with acquisition of any land under
Section 15 of the Act. Thus, whenever a notification
under Section 15 is issued, there is an obligation on
the State Government to pay the compensation.
65. Section 27 provides for determination of
compensation by agreement, while Section 28
provides for determination of compensation in default
of agreement. Section 28 states that if there was no
agreement for payment of compensation, the highway
authority or the officer authorised by the State
Government should, after holding an enquiry, make an
award determining the true area of the land acquired,
the amount of compensation to be paid and also
apportionment of compensation amongst all persons
who are entitled to it.
66. Sub-section (2) of Section 28 reads as follows:
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
"(2) In determining the amount of
compensation, the matter specified in sections 23
and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as
amended by the Schedule to this Act, shall be
taken into consideration"
67. Thus, according to Section 28(2), in determining the
compensation, the matter specified in Sections 23 and
24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by
the schedule to the Act should be taken into
consideration.
68. At this stage, it is to be noticed that since the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 has been repealed, by virtue of
Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1977, the
determination of compensation will have to be in
accordance with the Act which replaced it namely the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013.
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
69. It may be pertinent to state here that Sections 23 and
24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 insofar as its
application to KH Act stood amended as per the
schedule to the KH Act. A perusal of the schedule
would indicate that in essence, the provisions of 1894
Act and the amended provisions of Section 23 in the
schedule are more or less identical substantively and
only amendments that have been made are to indicate
that it is in relation to KH Act. It may also be pertinent
to state here that the fifth parameter under the
amended schedule also stipulates that the damage
sustained by the person interested at the time of
taking possession either by reason of any injury
affecting his immovable or immovable property or his
earnings will have to be taken into consideration while
determining the compensation. Thus, if the movable
or immovable properties of interested person are
affected that is one consideration and the second
consideration is that if his earnings are affected by the
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
acquisition that is also required to be statutorily
considered.
VII. PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY THE COMPETENT
AUTHORITY IN THIS CASE RELATING TO THE
DETERMINATION OF THE VALUE OF THE SANDALWOOD
TREES:
70. In this case, as already extracted above, the
competent authority while passing the award applied
the valuation made for the trees by the Government
and did not make a separate valuation for the
sandalwood trees. The petitioners, being aggrieved by
the non-determination of the value of the sandalwood
trees, approached this Court and, ultimately, a
Division Bench of this Court held that the petitioners
were entitled to compensation in respect of the
sandalwood trees and directed the competent
authority to assess and consider the claim of the land-
loser with regard to the value of the sandalwood
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
trees. This Court also permitted the land-loser to place
all the material that he desired in support of the claim
before the competent authority.
71. The competent authority has thereafter proceeded to
determine the value of the sandalwood trees on the
basis of the valuation that had been made by the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests.
72. The order of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
contains the following reasoning:
"ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjzÀÄ, CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À«
¢£ÁAPÀ:26.08.2021£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃT¹, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdåzÀ°è£À CgÀtå
¥ÀæzÉñÀUÀ¼À°è ºÁUÀÆ gÉÊvÀgÀ d«Ää£À°è MAzÀ£Éà ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ
E¥ÀàvÉÛöÊzÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÉ ¨É¼ÉzÀ ²æÃUÀAzsÀ VqÀUÀ½AzÀ ªÀµÀðªÁgÀÄ
JµÀÄÖ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ Heart wood, Mixed wood & sap wood
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀjAzÀ JµÀÄÖ DzÁAiÀÄ zÉÆgÉAiÀħºÀÄzÉA§ÄzÀgÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ
¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzsÀ£É WÀlPÀzÀ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À®Ä C¥ÀgÀ
¥ÀæzsÁ£À ªÀÄÄRå CgÀtå ¸ÀAgÀPÀëuÁ¢üPÁj (¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzsÀ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §¼ÀPÉ)
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ G¯ÉèÃR(3)gÀ F PÀbÉÃj ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ
17.09.2021gÀ°è w½¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.
CzÀgÀAvÉ C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À ªÀÄÄRå CgÀtå ¸ÀAgÀPÀëuÁ¢üPÁj
(¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzsÀ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §¼ÀPÉ) ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå :
C¥ÀæªÀÄÄC¸ÀA(¸ÀA§)¦J-²æÃUÀAzsÀ-¹Dgï-12/2019-20 ¢£ÁAPÀ
28.09.2021gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzsÀ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §¼ÀPÉ WÀlPÀzÀ
ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ²æÃUÀAzsÀzsÀ ¨É¼É DyðPÀvÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ ºÉÆgÀ vÀA¢gÀĪÀ QgÀÄ
ºÉÆwÛUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
CªÀ¯ÉÆÃQ¸À¯ÁV, CzÀgÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß F
PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÉ.
"²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ªÀÄgÀzÀ ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì PÀ¼ÉzÀAvÉ CzÀgÀ ¨É¼ÀªÀtÂUÉ ºÁUÀÆ
M¼ÀwgÀĽ£À (Heart wood) ¤ªÀiÁðtzÀ §UÉV£À ¤RgÀªÁzÀ ªÀiÁ»w
§ºÀÄvÉÃPÀ ®¨sÀå«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CgÀtå E¯ÁSÉ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¨É¼É¸À¯ÁzÀ AiÀıÀ¹é
£ÉqÀÄvÉÆÃ¥ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ §ºÀ¼À PÀrªÉÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀªÄÀ ¥ÀðPÀªÁV ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ
ªÀiÁrzÀ ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ £ÉqÀÄvÉÆæ£À°è (¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ 6-7) ªÀµÀð ºÁUÀÆ
§gÀUÁ®zÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ¤ÃgÁªÀj ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜ ªÀiÁrzÀ) ªÀÄgÀzÀ UÁvÀæzÀ
¨É¼ÀªÀtÂUÉ ¥Àæw ªÀµÀð ¸ÀgÁ¸Àj ºÉZÀѼÀ 2.5 ¸É.«ÄÃ. ¤AzÀ 3 ¸É.«ÄÃ
gÀªÀgÉUÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ UÀªÀĤ¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ, F jÃwAiÀÄ ¨É¼ÀªÀtÂUÉ
£ÉqÀÄvÉÆæ£ÁzÀåAvÀ MAzÉà vÀgÀ£ÁV EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è (EvÀgÉ £ÉqÀÄvÉÆÃ¥ÀÄ
¨É¼ÀUÉ ºÉÆð¹zÀ°è), DzÀÝjAzÀ, 15 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÉqÀÄvÉÆæ£À°è£À
±ÉÃRqÀ 10-15 gÀµÀÄÖ ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ 5-8 PÉ.f. ¥Àæw ªÀÄgÀPÉÌ M¼ÀwgÀļÀÄ
(Heard wood) (¨ÉÃj£À ¨sÀUÀªÀÇ M¼ÀUÉÆAqÀAvÉ) ºÉÆAzÀ§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ
¤jÃQë¸À§ºÀÄzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¥ÀæªÀiÁtªÀÅ £ÉqÀÄvÉÆæ£À GvÀÛªÀÄ
¤ªÀÄðºÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É CªÀ®A©¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀð ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄzÁzÀ ²æÃUÀAzsÀ ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À ªÀiË®å
¤zsÀðj¸ÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ºÁmïð ªÀÅqïEAwµÀÄÖ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt
C©üêÀÈ¢ÞUÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß RavÀªÁV ¤tð¬Ä¸À®Ä
¸ÁzsÀå«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ gÉÊvÀgÀÄ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ ¨É¼ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
¨É¼É¸ÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ°è C£ÀĸÀj¸ÀĪÀ PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃUÀAzsÀ ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
¨É¼É¸ÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ°è C£ÀĸÀj¸ÀĪÀ PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ «©ü£ÀߪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ
C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjzÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdåzÀ°è PÀȶ CgÀtåzÀ°è ²æÃUÀAzsÀ
VqÀUÀ¼À ªÀiË®åªÀiÁ¥À£À PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzsÀ£Á CzsÀåAiÀÄ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß
¹zÀÝ¥Àr¹ ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄgÀ «eÁУÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁAwæPÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ G¯ÉèÃR(3)gÀ F PÀbÉÃj ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ
13.12.2021gÀ°è PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, ªÀgÀ¢ F PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è FªÀgÉUÀÆ
¹éÃPÀÈvÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ªÀÄgÀ «eÁУÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁAwæPÀ
¸ÀA¸ÉÜ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjAzÀ ¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzsÀ£Á ªÀgÀ¢ ¹éPÀÈwAiÀiÁzÀ
£ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À§ºÀÄzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
F «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀAvÀzÀ°è zÀ£ÁAPÀ 21.11.2021
ºÁUÀÆ ¸À£Áä£Àå CgÀtå ºÁUÀÆ DºÁgÀ £ÁUÀjPÀ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
UÁæºÀPÀgÀ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀaªÀgÀÄ £Àr¹zÀ ¸À¨sÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 21.12.2021
gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 20.01.2022 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ZÀZÉð DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ, G¯ÉèÃR(5)gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ
02.02.2022gÀ°è F PÀbÉÃj ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹, F
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ²æÃUÀAzsÀ VqÀUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ
ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¸À®Ä gÀavÀªÁzÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À vÀAqÀªÀÅ ZÀað¹,
««zsÀ AiÉÆÃd£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£ÀĵÁÖ£ÀUÉƽ¸ÀĪÁUÀ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ
¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è PÀrAiÀÄ®àlÖ ¥Àæw ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ¸À¹UÉ ªÉÆzÀ®£ÉÃ
ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ ºÀvÀÛ£Éà ªÀµÀðzÀªÀgÉUÀÆ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV ªÀµÀðªÁgÀÄ
¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦¹gÀĪÀ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ zÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¹zÉ.
Sl.No Age of the Sandal Compensation
plant amount per
sandalwood plant
(in Rs.)
1 1 year old 420.00
2 2 year old 513.00
3 3 year old 596.00
4 4 year old 679.00
5 5 year old 762.00
6 6 year old 845.00
7 7 year old 928.00
8 8 year old 1011.00
9 9 year old 1094.00
10 10 year old 1177.00
(F zÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥Àæw ºÉPÉÖÃgïUÉ UÀjµÀÖ 400 ¸À¹UÀ½UÉ
C£ÀéAiÀĪÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ)
ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¹zÀ zÀgÀUÀ¼À®èzÉÃ, ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄgÀUÀ½AzÀ
vÉUÉAiÀÄ®àlÖ ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð ªÀiË®åªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ
gÉÊvÀjUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ
ªÀiÁ£Àå CgÀtå ºÁUÀÆ DºÁgÀ, £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ
ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀaªÀjAzÀ C£ÀĪÉÆâvÀ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
CzÀgÀAvÉ, F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ."
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
73. As could be seen from the above, the Chief
Conservator of Forests notices the opinion of the
Additional Chief Conservator of Forests (Research and
Growth) that there was no definite material regarding
the extent of heartwood in a sandalwood tree as they
age every year and it was observed in the plantations
raised by the Forest Department, the girth of a 6-7
year old sandalwood tree would increase by 2.5 to 3
cms and that the growth would not be uniform, and
about 10-15% of 15 year old trees would have 5-8
kgs of heartwood.
74. The Chief Conservator, however, thereafter proceeded
to hold that it would be appropriate to accept the
proposals received and determined the value of the
trees ranging from 1 to 10 years. The Chief
Conservator does not state as to how this value is
arrived at and whether it is based on the cost of
cultivation or the potential yield. It may be pertinent
to state here that this order was passed
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
notwithstanding the fact that he was yet to receive a
report from the Director, Institute of Wood Science
and Technology who had, in fact, stated earlier that
they were not equipped to assess the value of the
sandalwood trees. Thus, essentially, there is no
reasoning laid out by the Chief Conservator of Forests
for the valuation arrived at by him for the sandalwood
trees and the competent authority has comply
accepted this valuation.
75. It is rather sad that Karnataka, which is referred to as
the "Sandalwood land" ("²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ £ÁqÀÄ") does not have
any scientifically determined method of valuing
sandalwood trees.
VIII. RE: THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY OF
APPROACHING THE ARBITRATOR UNDER THE ACT:
76. Learned Additional Advocate General as well as the
other learned Counsel submitted that this issue
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
regarding valuation of sandalwood trees had come up
for consideration for the first time before this Court
and there were no precedents in this regard, and that
it would therefore be appropriate for this Court to
examine the issue threadbare and determine the
manner in which sandalwood trees are to be valued.
77. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also pointed out
that as per the impugned order of the Chief
Conservator of Forest itself, there were no guidelines
available for determination of the value of a
sandalwood tree which is less than 15 years old and it
would therefore be a futile exercise to remand the
matter for a fresh consideration or to relegate the
petitioner to approach the arbitrator. In fact, it was
contended that the Deputy Commissioner, being the
arbitrator, would be bound by the order of the
Principal Conservator which had been approved by the
Government and, hence, relegating the petitioners to
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
the remedy of arbitration provided under the Act
would only be an exercise in futility.
78. In light of these submissions and also the fact that
this issue would also crop up for consideration, given
the fact that sandalwood trees are being raised by
several farmers whose lands could be acquired, I am
of the view that this issue would have to be dealt with
and accordingly, I am embarking on this exercise.
IX. THE MANNER OF VALUING A SANDALWOOD TREE
WHICH IS LESS THAN 15 YEARS AND IN WHICH THE
HEARTWOOD IS YET TO BE FORMED:
79. It is no doubt true that the value of sandalwood is
determined by the Forest Department but this
determination of the value of sandalwood is on the
basis of the heartwood available in sandalwood trees
which have been felled after they are more than 15-20
years old. But the value of a sandalwood tree, which is
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
yet to possess heartwood -- the true intrinsic value of
a sandalwood tree -- is incapable of determination by
the experts in the field.
80. Sandalwood is an evergreen tree which attains a
height of 4 to 20 meters and a girth of 1 to 2.4 meters
and may live for more than 100 years. It is a parasitic
plant whose roots intertwine with the roots of other
species without harming them. The intrinsic value of a
sandalwood tree is the heartwood, which is yellowish
to brown in colour, strongly scented, and is considered
as the finest material for carvings and fragrance of its
oil which are in huge demand. The sandalwood trees
take a minimum of 15-20 years and require a girth of
50-50 cms to enable its felling and harvesting of its
heartwood. It is, however, not known from which year
the heartwood is formed in a sandalwood tree.
81. As per the brochures of the Forest Department and
the KSDL, which are produced by the petitioners,
- 61 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
under which the State actively encouraged the
planting and raising of sandalwood trees. In these
brochures, the number of sandalwood trees that can
be grown vary from 277 per hectare to approximately
500 sandalwood trees per acre. It is stated that
between the sandalwood trees, agricultural crops can
be grown, and other trees should be interspersed as
the sandalwood trees are parasitic plants and need
the roots of other trees to survive.
82. In fact, the brochure issued by the Forest Department
in the year 2017 states as follows:
"DyðPÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀgÁªÀıÉðªÀiÁrzÀAvÉ ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ¨É¼ÉUÉ vÀUÀ®ÄªÀ
ªÉZÀÑ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DzÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁzÀjªÁgÀÄ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ F PɼÀV£ÀAwªÉ.
a) ªÀÄ¼É D±ÀæAiÀÄzÀ°è ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ªÀÄgÀzÀ eÉÆvÉ PÀȶ ¨É¼É:
²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ¸À¹UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄgÀPÉÌ ºÁUÀÄ
¸Á°¤AzÀ ¸Á°UÉ 6«Äà CAvÀgÀzÀ°è (0.6«ÄÃ)' UÀÄArUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÉPÉÖgï MAzÀPÉÌ 277 ¸À¹UÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¸À¹UÀ¼À ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ°è SÁ° EgÀĪÀ d«Ää£À°è ¥ÁægÀA©üPÀ
¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ LzÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÉ vÉÆUÀj, gÁV, eÉÆüÀ, PÀqÀ¯É
- 62 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
EvÁå¢ PÀȶ ¨É¼ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨É¼É¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5£ÉÃ
ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ©ÃdUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAUÀ滸À§ºÀÄzÀÄ. 16£ÉÃ
ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ ¥Àæw 2 ªÀµÀðPÉƪÉÄä ¥Àæw±ÀvÀ 10gÀµÀÄÖ ZÉ£ÁßV ¨É¼ÉzÀ
ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À PÀmÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr 25£Éà ªÀµÀð G½zÀ J¯Áè
²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀmÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ. F
ªÀiÁzÀjAiÀÄ°è 25 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¤ªÀðºÀuÉUÉ CAzÁdÄ
gÀÆ.50,75,000 ªÉZÀÑ vÀUÀ®ÄwÛzÀÄÝ, 5 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À PÀȶ ¨É¼É¬ÄAzÀ
gÀÆ.1,79,000 ºÁUÀÄ ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ©ÃdUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ M¼ÀwgÀļÀÄ
(Heard wood) ¨ÉÃgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ MlÄÖ gÀÆ.1,27,34,000
UÀ¼À DzÁAiÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ 25 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ RZÀÄð
PÀ¼ÉzÀÄ ºÉPÉÖÃgï MAzÀPÉÌ gÀÆ. 78,38,000 UÀ¼À ¤ªÀé¼À ¯Á¨sÀ
zÉÆÃgÉAiÀÄÄvÀÛzÉ.
b) ¤ÃgÁªÀj D±ÀæAiÀÄzÀ°è ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ªÀÄgÀzÀ eÉÆvÉ PÀȶ ¨É¼É:
UÀÄAr vÉUÉzÀÄ ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ¸À¹ £ÉqÀĪÀ ºÁUÀÄ PÀȶ ¨É¼É
¨É¼ÉAiÀÄĪÀ «zsÁ£ÀªÀÅ ªÀiÁzÀj a) gÀAvÉ EzÀÄÝ ºÀ¤ ¤ÃgÁªÀj
CxÀªÁ ¸ÀÖçAPÀègï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀȶ ºÁUÀÄ ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ¨É¼ÉUÉ
¤ÃgÀÄt¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ ºÉZÀÄѪÀj PÉ®¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. PÀȶ ¨É¼É
ºÁUÀÄ 25£Éà ªÀµÀðzÀ ªÀgÉUÉ ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉUÉ
vÀUÀ®ÄªÀ MlÄÖ ªÉZÀÑ gÀÆ.51,00,000 DVzÀÄÝ ªÉÆzÀ® 5
ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À PÀȶ ¨É¼É¬ÄAzÀ gÀÆ.4,07,150 ºÁUÀÄ ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ
©ÃdUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ M¼ÀwgÀļÀÄ(Heard wood) ¨ÉÃgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ
¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ MlÄÖ gÀÆ.1,77,34,000UÀ¼À DzÁAiÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ 25
- 63 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ RZÀÄð PÀ¼ÉzÀÄ ºÉPÉÖÃgï MAzÀPÉÌ
gÀÆ.1,30,41,150 UÀ¼À ¤ªÀé¼À ¯Á¨sÀ zÉÆgÉAiÀÄÄvÀÛzÉ.
c) ªÀÄ¼É D±ÀæAiÀÄzÀ°è ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ eÉÆvÉ EvÀgÉ CgÀtå ªÀÄgÀ ¨É¼É:
d«ÄãÀÄ ºÀ¸À£ÀÄUÉƽ¹ 3«ÄÃX3«Äà CAvÀgÀzÀ°è
(0.6«ÄÃ) C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ MlÄÖ 1111 UÀÄArUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃr CzÀgÀ°è
VqÀ¢AzÀ VqÀPÉÌ ºÁUÀÄ ¸Á°¤AzÀ ¸Á°UÉ 6 «Äà CAvÀgÀzÀ°è
MlÄÖ 277 ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ¸À¹UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÄ E£ÀÄß½zÀ UÀÄArUÀ¼À°è
MlÄÖ 834 EvÀgÉ CgÀtå eÁwAiÀÄ ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. F
ªÀiÁzÀjAiÀÄ°è ªÉÆzÀ® 5 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà DzÁAiÀÄ
§gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. 5£Éà ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ ²æÃUÀAzsÀ ©ÃdUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
¸ÀAUÀ滸À§ºÀÄzÀÄ. 8£Éà ªÀµÀðzÀ°è ¥Àæw±ÀvÀ 50% gÀµÀÄÖ ºÁUÀÄ
13£Éà ªÀµÀðzÀ°è E£ÀÄß½zÀ 50% CgÀtå eÁwAiÀÄ ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
PÀmÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ. 16£Éà ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ ¥Àæw 2
ªÀµÀðPÉÆ̪ÉÄä ZÉ£ÁßV ¨É¼ÉzÀ ¥Àæw±ÀvÀ 10 gÀµÀÄÖ ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ
ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À PÀmÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr, 25£Éà ªÀµÀðzÀ°è E£ÀÄß½zÀ J¯Áè
²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À PÀmÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ. F
ªÀiÁzÀjAiÀÄ°è ²æÃUÀAzsÀ ºÁUÀÄ CgÀtå eÁwAiÀÄ ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
¨É¼ÉAiÀÄ®Ä vÀUÀ®ÄªÀ MlÄÖ ªÉZÀÑ gÀÆ.50,50,000 DVzÀÄÝ
²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ©ÃdUÀ¼ÀÄ, CgÀtå eÁwAiÀÄ ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
M¼ÀwgÀĽ¤AzÀ (Heard wood) ¨ÉÃgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ MlÄÖ
gÀÆ.1,56,77,400 UÀ¼À DzÁAiÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ RZÀÄð PÀ¼ÉzÀÄ
ºÉPÉÖÃgï MAzÀPÉÌ 25 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À°è gÀÆ.1,06,27,400UÀ¼À ¤ªÀé¼À
¯Á¨sÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤jÃQë¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ.
- 64 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
d) ¤ÃgÁªÀj D±ÀæAiÀÄzÀ°è ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ eÉÆvÉ EvÀgÉ CgÀtå ªÀÄgÀ
¨É¼É:
UÀÄAr vÉUÉzÀÄ ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ¸À¹ £ÉqÀĪÀ ºÁUÀÄ EvÀgÉ
CgÀtå ¨É¼É ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄĪÀ «zsÁ£ÀªÀÅ ªÀiÁzÀj c) gÀAvÉ DVzÀÄÝ
ºÀ¤ ¤ÃgÁªÀj ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ²æÃUÀAzsÀ ºÁUÀÄ EvÀgÉ CgÀtå ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À
¨É¼ÉUÉ ¤ÃgÀÄ MzÀV¸À¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ªÀiÁzÀjAiÀÄ°è 25£ÉÃ
ªÀµÀðzÀ ªÀgÉUÉ ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ºÁUÀÄ EvÀgÉ CgÀtå ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À
¨É¼ÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉUÉ vÀUÀ®ÄªÀ MlÄÖ ªÉZÀÑ gÀÆ.52,50,000
CVzÀÄÝ, EvÀgÉ CgÀtå ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ, ²æÃUÀAzsÀzÀ ©ÃdUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
M¼ÀwgÀļÀÄ(Heard wood) ¨ÉÃgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ MlÄÖ
gÀÆ.2,12,94,900 UÀ¼À DzÁAiÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ 25 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À
¤ªÀðºÀuÉ RZÀÄð PÀ¼ÉzÀÄ ºÉPÉÖÃgï MAzÀPÉÌ gÀÆ.1,60,44,900UÀ¼À
¤ªÀé¼À ¯Á¨sÀ zÉÆgÉAiÀÄÄvÀÛzÉ."
83. As could be seen from the above, the Forest
Department stated that about 277 sandalwood trees
can be raised in a hectare of land and in between
them, either crop could be raised, or 834 other kinds
of trees can be grown. It is ultimately stated that after
25 years, the sandalwood trees so raised would fetch
a yield ranging from Rs. 78.38 lakhs to about Rs. 1.60
crores.
- 65 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
84. The petitioners have also produced brochures issued
by the KSDL in which it is stated 500 trees can be
raised in a hectare and this would yield a sum of Rs.
1.37 crores as profit.
85. In fact, the petitioners have produced a covering letter
dated 05.09.2018 along with a detailed report on
sandalwood farming which was sent by the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests to the Additional
Commissioner of the Ministry of Agriculture and
Farmers Welfare, in which it is stated as follows:
"VII. Financial viability of sandal plantations:
Common measures used to assess the financial
viability of a project are Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C
Ratio), Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of
Return (IRR). Viswanath et al (2010)2 estimated B/C
ratio of 3.3; IRR of 33% and NPV of Rs. 12.5 lakh for
sandal plantations using the following specifications:
1. Planting density: 4 X 4 mt (or 625 trees per ha)
2. Age at harvest: 15 years.
- 66 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
3. Cost of cultivation and protection: Rs. 21 lakhs per
ha. Of this, more than 50% has to be spent on
protection after the trees cross about 35 cm girth
4. Average yield per tree: 3 kg of heartwood, 10 kg
of mixed wood and 21 kg of sapwood
5. Sale price: Heart wood @ Rs. 3500/kg; Mixed
wood @ Rs. 1363 per kg and sapwood @ Rs. 43 per
kg of (price fetched in the sale of Mysore in 2007).
6. Discount rate adopted: 15%.
7. Survival rate expected: 90%.
Corresponding figures for 20 years of rotation age is
B/C ratio of 1.9, IRR to 21.62% and NPV of Rs. 4.95
lakh because the protection costs are likely to
increase steeply during the last five years. Obviously,
sandal cultivation is financially viable. Density of
planting and yield has significant impact on the
financial viability.
In a highly optimistic study (2015)3, KSDL estimated
that sandal planted at 4 X 5 mt spacement on farm
land can yield up to 20 kg of sandal heartwood at 25
years of age under conditions of good care and
protection. Total per ha investment including the
price of land at Rs. 10 lakh: irrigation cost of Rs. 2
lakh and protection cost of Rs. 9 lakhs, inflation
and/or interest @ 12% per annum, total cultivation
cost was estimated at Rs. 27.5 lakh/ha. Assuming
90% survival and an average price of Rs. 4000 per
- 67 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
kg of heartwood, the income from sandal heartwood
alone is estimated at Rs. 360 lakh/ha. Including
mixed/white wood and income from agricultural crop,
total income was estimated at Rs.371 lakhs/ha. This
study indicates that sandal cultivation is viable even
if all costs are imputed.
In a more recent publication (2017)4, the Research
Wing of Karnataka Forest Department estimated the
cost and returns for four different models of sandal
cultivation using 6X6 mt spacement (or 277 sandal
trees per hectare) viz., sandal inter-cultivation with
rain fed and irrigated agricultural crops; and sandal
inter- cultivation with other fast growing agro-
forestry tree species under rain fed as well as
irrigated conditions. Under dry conditions, sandal is
expected to put up an annual girth increment of 2-
2.5 cm per year. Under irrigated conditions, the girth
increment my go up to 2.5-3 cm per year. Height
varies depending upon the site conditions, and
overhead cover/host plant. However, high variability
in the growth rate is anticipated as a consequence of
which all sandal trees can't be harvested in one go.
They have to be harvested over a period of 10 years.
Yield is expected to be available from 16th year
onwards. Heart wood yield estimated is as under:
- 68 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
Sl Age of harvest No of Heart wood yield (kgs)
no (years) trees/ha
that can be
harvested
Rain fed Irrigated
Total 250 1323 1823
Costs and returns per hectare from the respective
main crops as well as sandal at current prices were
included in the calculations and the economics were
worked out. Details of expenditure and income at
current prices are as follows:
(RS. Lakh)
Sl no Type of sandal Rain fed Total Total Net
cultivation or expenditure revenue income
irrigated
1 Inter planted Rain fed 49.96 127.34 77.38
with agricultural
crops
2 Inter planted Irrigated 50.08 177.34 127.26
with agricultural
crops
3 Inter planted Rain fed 50.50 156.77 106.27
with agro
forestry tree
species
4 Inter planted Irrigated 52.50 212.95 160.45
with agro
forestry tree
species
Risk of theft of sandal trees is very high. A provision
of about 10% of the trees being lost to theft has
been included in the calculations. In spite of this,
- 69 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
expected income from all the models is quite high
and can't be matched by the usual agricultural crops.
This is what has been driving many farmers to take
up sandal cultivation in the state. None of the models
include oil from sandal seed. Kernel contains more
than 30% of oil. This oil is found to have high
therapeutic values. Seed can be harvested for oil
purpose from 10th year onwards. One kilogram of
seed fetches Rs. 300. It can fetch decent annual
revenues to the sandal cultivators from about 7th
year onwards if there are sufficient number of trees.
Some planters have been raising seedlings from the
wildlings found under the sandal trees during the
monsoon season and earning revenue by selling
them, though it is not desirable. If these benefits are
also included, the financial viability will still be better.
This is the potential. However, no one can be sure of
harvesting the full potential unless we have gone
through at least one full cycle of planting and
harvesting."
Viswanath. S, Dhanya, B, Purushothaman.S and Rathore. T. S.
(2010). Financial Viability of Sandal (Santalum album) based agro
forestry practices in Southern India, Indian Journal of Agro forestry,
Vol. 12, no. 2, P. 14-22.
Ananymous (2015). Srigandha Belesi Sirivantharagi (Grow Sandal and
Be Wealthy). Published by Managing Director, Karnataka Soaps and
Detergents Ltd. A Govt of Karnataka Enterprise, Sri Gandha Nagar,
Bangalore.
APCCF (Research& Utilisation), Dorasanipalya, Bangalore, November,
2017. Financial Viability of Sandal. Kannada version published by
Karnataka Forest Department.
- 70 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
86. As could be seen from the above, the Research Wing
of the Forest Department had itself estimated the
costs and returns for four different models of
sandalwood cultivation at 277 sandalwood trees per
hectare and the net yield ranged from Rs. 77.38 lakhs
to 1.06 crores.
87. Thus, the potential of having an earning from raising
sandalwood trees has been calculated and estimated
by the Department itself, which is the domain expert
in relation to the valuation of trees, especially
Sandalwood trees, and it cannot therefore be denied
that a sandalwood tree has definite potential to earn a
lucrative earning for the person who raises it.
88. In other words, a sandalwood tree cannot be equated
to any other tree (including a fruit-bearing tree) and
in valuing a sandalwood tree, its potential yield will
have to be taken into consideration. It is to be kept in
mind that a farmer, by planting sandalwood trees in
- 71 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
his land, embarks upon the task of raising them and
protecting them for 16 years with the fond hope of
earning a handsome sum and this hard work and
labour invested over a long period of time cannot be
ignored. He cannot therefore be asked to be satisfied
with just the cost of raising the trees.
89. However, the problem in this case is that the trees
existing on the acquired lands in Tarikere Taluk of
Chikkamagalur District and Srinivasapura Taluk of
Kolar Taluk are stated to be aged between 6 and 9
years and cannot therefore be harvested for its
heartwood and, consequently, there is a problem in
assessing its potential value.
90. The Forest Department has proceeded to take into
consideration only the cost of cultivation as could be
seen from the minutes of the meeting dated
21.01.2020 (Annexure R-1 to the SO of the State) and
has arrived at the sum of Rs.282.095/- per tree. The
- 72 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
Department has, thereafter, in the subsequent
proceedings, held on 06.03.2021 (Annexure R-2 to the
SO of the State) has decided to add 100% to the base
cost and has arrived at figures which are ultimately
reflected in the order of the Principal Conservator of
Forests dated 10.02.2022. In neither of these
proceedings has the potential earning -- that a farmer
would get after 15 years -- even been considered.
91. As already noticed above, the fourth parameter laid
down in Section 28 of the 2013 Act for determining
the value is the earnings of the person interested,
which has been injuriously affected by the acquisition.
In light of the fact that the petitioners had raised
sandalwood trees for 6 to 9 long years, it is but
natural that their expected earnings for their
investment and labour cannot be denied to them.
92. In relation to sandalwood trees, taking into
consideration that it has a long gestation period for
- 73 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
assessing its yield, the potentiality of its value will
thus have to be determined.
93. To draw an analogy: when lands are acquired, for the
purposes of its valuation -- the potential use of the
land for forming plots, its proximity to developed
areas or towns are the criteria consistently being
followed by the Courts from a very long time (see:
AIR 1967 SC 465) and the same are taken into
consideration for evaluating the compensation
payable. Thus, it would be necessary to assess the
potential value that a sandalwood tree may yield.
94. As already noticed above, the proposal submitted by
the Forest Department to the Union Government for
supporting sandalwood cultivation in Karnataka
contains a chapter specifically dealing with the
financial viability of sandalwood cultivation and in this,
the estimation of KSDL, and a publication of the
Research Wing of the Forest Department is also
- 74 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
referred to. It has been held that revenue ranging
from Rs.77.38 lakhs to Rs.106.27 lakhs per hectare,
on the basis of the sandalwood prices prevailing as on
2017,has been assessed.
95. In my view, this assessment of the Research Wing of
the Forest Department merits acceptance since it is
based on a scientific study and has taken into
consideration different modes of cultivating the
sandalwood trees. It is also to be started here that the
calculations have been made on the assumption there
would be 277 sandalwood trees per hectare. If this
calculation is taken into consideration, the value per
tree could be calculated by dividing the calculated
yield by 277 i.e., the number of trees. Thus, the value
of each tree would be:
i. If interplanted with agricultural crops and
rain fed: 77.38 lakhs ÷ 277 trees = Rs. 27,935
per tree;
- 75 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
ii. If interplanted with agricultural crops and
irrigated: 127.26 lakhs ÷ 277 trees = Rs.
45,942/- per tree; and
iii. If interplanted with agro forestry tree
species and rainfed: 106.27 lakhs ÷ 277 trees
= Rs. 38,364.62 per tree.
96. However, in this case, there is a further dispute
regarding the number of trees that can be planted in a
hectare or an acre of land to raise a sandalwood
plantation. As per the above method, it is 277 trees
per hectare. However, in the very same report, as per
the study of KSDL conducted in 2015, it is found that
a hectare of land in which sandalwood is raised would
yield about Rs.3.71 crores per hectare. In this study,
the trees are planted at a distance of 4x5 mts as
against 6x6 mts in the former method. This would
mean that as per the KSDL's study, the number of
trees planted in a hectare would be 494 trees.
Consequently, the value of each sandalwood tree
- 76 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
would be Rs.360 lakhs ÷ 494, which would be
Rs.72,874/-.
97. There are thus two values which can be attached to a
sandalwood tree, one ranging from Rs.27,935/- per
tree to Rs.45,942/- per tree, as per the study by the
Forest Department and another value at Rs.72,874/-
per tree, as per the study of KSDL. In light of the
varying values, for the purpose of valuation of a
sandalwood tree, it would be safer and rational to take
the average of all the values, which would be
Rs.46,278/- per tree.
98. It may be pertinent to state here that since the
preliminary notification in these cases is of the year
2016, the calculations made on the basis of
sandalwood prices prevailing in 2015 and 2017 can be
safely accepted.
- 77 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
99. However, the value as determined above would be for
a 15 year old tree and this cannot be adopted in the
present case, since the age of the trees is admittedly
between 6 and 9 years.
100. Since, in the detailed report referred to above, the
survival rate is stated to be 90%, it can also be safely
assumed that the survival rate of a sandalwood tree is
high. Given the fact that the trees, in these cases,
have been reared for a period ranging from 6-9 years,
it can also be assumed that these trees would survive
for 15 years and could be harnessed for its heartwood.
However, that process would entail the petitioners
rearing the trees and incurring costs and time, and
the petitioners cannot obviously be compensated for
the expenditure and work that they are yet to expend.
In my view, therefore, it would be appropriate to
come to the conclusion that the petitioners would not
be entitled to the above-mentioned value, but they
would be entitled to a percentage of the said value.
- 78 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
101. As already stated above, a sandalwood tree would
yield Rs.46,278/- (per tree) after they reach the age
of 15 years. However, as opined by experts, there
would be a failure rate of 10% in their survival and
the possibility of the tree being plundered and stolen
is also a definite possibility. It would therefore be
appropriate to take these factors into account and
discount the above value by 30%, and the resultant
value per sandalwood tree would be Rs.32,394/. But
this value cannot be awarded to trees aged between 6
and 9 years, and it would be necessary to determine
the value of these trees based on this sum.
102. If the sum of Rs.32,394/- i.e., the value of a tree that
would fetch after 15 years is taken, the value per tree
as per its age wise can be assessed by dividing said
value by a factor of 15 and consequently, the value of
the tree, age wise, would be Rs.2,159/- per year.
- 79 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
103. However, in respect of a tree which is just 1-2 years
old, this amount cannot be taken as it is quite possible
that 1 year old sandalwood saplings could be planted
just before the lands are proposed for acquisition
(which would be generally known beforehand in the
area) to claim compensation. This value adopted can
be applied to sandalwood trees which are at least 3
years old as on the date of the preliminary
notification.
104. In respect of trees which are 1-2 years old, the cost of
cultivation as determined in the impugned orders
issued by the Principal Conservator can be applied.
105. As the trees in this case are aged between 6 and 9
years, even according to the Forest Department, the
value of each tree would be:
i. For a tree aged 6 years: Rs.2,159/- x 6 =
Rs.12,954/-;
- 80 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
ii. For a tree aged 7 years: Rs.2,159/- x 7 =
Rs.15,113/-;
iii. For a tree aged 8 years: Rs.2,159/- x 8 =
Rs.17,272/-; and
iv. For a tree aged 9 years: Rs.2,159 x 9 =
Rs.19,431/.
106. It is noticed that all the trees in these cases are not 9
years old and there are trees which are aged between
6 and 9 years as per the reports of the Forest
Department. Thus, for a tree exceeding 3 years, the
amount payable would be Rs.2,159 x the age of the
tree i.e., 2,159x6, 2,159x7, 2,159x8, 2,159x9 and so
on and so forth.
107. However, for a sandalwood tree to survive, it is
necessary to plant only a certain number of trees per
hectare. According to the calculation made by the
Research Wing of the Forest Department, 277 trees
are to be planted in a hectare along with 845 other
- 81 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
trees, while the KSDL study proceeds on the footing
that 494 trees can be planted in a hectare.
108. Since there were wide variations in the number of
sandalwood trees that can be planted in a hectare of
land, the Forest Department was directed to file an
affidavit specifying its stand in this regard and,
accordingly, the Deputy Conservator of Forests has
filed an affidavit stating that the prescribed ideal
number of seedlings to be planted in one hectare
would be 400. In my view, in light of the varying
figures in the brochures and the detailed report, it
would be safer to accept this figure of 400 sandalwood
trees per hectare i.e., 161 trees per acre or 4 trees
per gunta.
109. Consequently, for a plot of land measuring 1 acre in
which sandalwood trees are raised as a plantation, the
compensation payable for 161 sandalwood trees --
say, for trees that are 6 years old as on the date of
- 82 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
the Section 3A notification, would be Rs.12,954x 161
i.e., Rs.20,85,594/- per acre. This method of
calculation would have to be adopted considering the
value of the trees vis-à-vis their age as calculated
above (for 7 years) i.e., Rs.15,113 x 161 i.e., Rs.
24,33,193/- per acre and son on and so forth.
110. Since 161 trees can be grown in an acre, only 4 trees
can be grown in a gunta of land, which would mean
that for a plot of land measuring 1 guntas, if there are
6 year old trees available, a compensation of
Rs.12,954/- x 4 i.e., Rs.51,816 per gunta can be paid
on the premise that only 4 trees can be grown in a
gunta of land. If the land contains a 7 year or a 8 year
or a 9 year old sandalwood trees, the value of the tree
as detailed above shall be applied to determine the
compensation payable for 1 gunta of land in which
sandalwood trees are grown.
- 83 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
111. If there are trees in excess of this number of 161 per
acre or 4 trees per gunta, they would only be entitled
for a sum of Rs.845/- per every 6 year old tree or a
sum as determined for each tree depending on their
age, as determined by the Principal Conservator of
Forests which is calculated on the basis of the cost
incurred in cultivating them.
112. In respect of the lands acquired in Srinivaspura Taluk
under the KH Act, the authorities have recorded that
there are 109 sandalwood trees which were aged 9
years in the 20 guntas of land that were acquired. In
light of the above discussion, compensation can only
be paid on the premise that only 80 trees could be
successfully raised in 20 guntas of land and for the
remaining 29 sandalwood trees, petitioner would only
be entitled for the cost of cultivation as prescribed by
the Principal Conservator of Forests. In other words,
the petitioner would be entitled to 80 x Rs.19431/-
i.e., Rs. 15,54,480/- and a further sum of Rs.1109/- x
- 84 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
29 i.e., Rs. 32,161/- i.e., a total sum of
Rs.15,86,641/-.
113. The competent authority is directed to pass awards in
these terms within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of this order.
114. It is also to be stated here that in these cases, the
prices of sandalwood as prevailing in 2015 and 2017
have been accepted since the preliminary notification
is of the year 2016. However, in respect of valuation
of sandalwood trees which may crop up under future
notifications, the process will have to be reworked by
taking into consideration the sandalwood prices as are
prevalent on the date of the preliminary notification.
115. The Principal Conservator is directed to prepare
detailed guidelines in terms of this judgment and also
notify the prices of sandalwood prevailing every year
- 85 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
so to enable the competent authorities or the SLAOs
to pass an award.
X. OTHER SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED
COUNSEL:
116. Arguments were advanced on behalf of the petitioners
that the price of a sandalwood tree as on the date of
the notification cannot be the criteria since the price of
sandalwood would be exponentially higher 10 years
thereafter and, hence, a higher price for sandalwood
tree is to be considered. In my view, this argument
cannot be accepted because the petitioners would be
getting the value of the trees 10 years before their
yield can be assessed and they cannot thus demand
the inflated value of sandalwood. The price of a
sandalwood tree as on the date of its acquisition
would therefore be the ideal parameter for
determining the value of a sandalwood tree which is
yet to mature for its felling.
- 86 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
117. Arguments were also advanced by the learned counsel
Smt.Shipa Shah that the trees were not in existence
as on the date of the notification and this stood
established from the sale deeds of the petitioners. In
my view, this argument would be unavailable to the
NHAI in light of the above noted correspondence of
the NHAI itself calling upon the Deputy Conservator of
Forests and its own valuer to assess the value of 2535
sandalwood trees standing on the acquired lands and
which were stated to be 6 years old.
118. The other argument -- that one of the agreements
entered into with KSDL produced, itself indicated that
it was printed on a stamp paper which had been
purchased much later, establishing that it was a
concocted document -- also cannot be accepted since
the question as to whether there were existing
sandalwood trees in the acquired lands has not been
questioned by the NHAI at any point in time. They
have, in fact, acknowledged the existence of 6 year
- 87 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
old sandalwood trees numbering about 2353 and had
asked its valuer to assess their value.
119. She also sought to argue that the petitioners had
purchased the lands just before the publications of the
notifications and, hence, no regard should be given for
their contentions that they had raised sandalwood
trees.
120. In order to ascertain whether the trees were planted
just before the issuance of the notifications so as to
claim compensation, the learned AAG was directed to
ensure that a spot inspection was done by the Forest
officials and a report be submitted. Learned AAG filed
a memo dated 26.11.2024 enclosing photographs
captured through Google Maps indicating the
existence of a sandalwood plantation over a large
extent of land in which the lands in question were
involved.
- 88 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
121. He also filed a memo dated 12.12.2024 enclosing a
communication of the Deputy Conservator of Forests,
in which it has been stated that in the extent of 7
acres 38 guntas which was a 'L' shaped land, the
petitioners had sub-divided the land into plots of 30 x
40 feet and the sandalwood saplings had been grown
these plots since 2016 after the issuance of the
notification. It is also stated that there are a total of
3966 sandalwood saplings and 884 different kinds of
trees in this extent of 7 acres 32 guntas. Photographs
captured through Google Maps are also enclosed to
this memo which also shows that there is a plantation
in the L-shaped land which measured 7 acres 32
guntas. It is therefore clear from this communication
that there is a full-fledged sandalwood plantation in
existence and the petitioners did not plant the
saplings only because of the notifications.
122. It has also been stated in this communication that the
petitioners could have only planted 1194 saplings in
- 89 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
this extent of 7 acres 32 guntas (i.e., 2.9866
hectares) but they had raised 3966 sandalwood trees
and 884 other trees. Since the compensation payable
in respect of sandalwood trees in an acre of land is
held to be payable by taking into consideration the
value of only 161 trees per acre, the raising of a
higher number of trees would be of no significance for
calculating the compensation payable.
123. In other words, irrespective of the number of
sandalwood trees planted in an acre of land, for the
purposes of computing compensation, the value of
only 161 trees per acre will be taken into
consideration as detailed above and for the remaining
trees, only the cost of cultivation would be taken as
aforesaid.
124. Along with the memo, a sketch and Google Maps
photographs are enclosed indicating that a
sandalwood plantation has been raised over a larger
- 90 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4490
AND 1 OTHER
extent of 7 acres 32 guntas, which is an L-shaped
land, and the photographs as well as the sketch also
demarcate the area that is acquired for the formation
of the proposed NH-206, and these photographs and
sketch clearly establish that a full-fledged sandalwood
plantation has been raised and it is not an attempt by
the petitioner to plant the saplings only in the portions
of the lands that are sought to be acquired. Thus, the
argument of Smt.Shilpa Shah in this regard cannot be
accepted.
125. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
PKS
