IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE R THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION Nos. 12174-12176 OF 2014 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
1. SHIVAMMA W/O LATE Y.B. SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN BENIFIT NOT CLAIMED, RESIDENT OF YELADADLU VILLAGE, HALADODLU POST, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT, PIN-572 128.
2. NANJUNDAPPA S/O SEEBILINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN BENIFIT NOT CLAIMED, RESIDENT OF YELADADLU VILLAGE, HALADODLU POST, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT, PIN-572 128.
3. Y.S. SIDDESH S/O LATE Y.B.SIDDALNGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDENT OF YELADADLU VILLAGE, HALADODLU POST, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT, PIN-572 128.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ARAVINDA BHAVANA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA, DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. G S VINAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & 3 ) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 18.2.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANN-F AND DIRECT THE R-3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.7.2013 OF THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANN-E GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS TO PAY COMPENSATION FOR THE EUCALYPTUS TREES STANDING ON THE LAND OF THE PETITIONERS ACQUIRED BY THE RESPONDENTS FOR FORMATION OF INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINMARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The grievance of the land-losers in these writ petitions essentially is against non-assessment and payment of compensation for the eucalyptus trees allegedly standing on the lands acquired. This exclusion is on the basis of Condition No.4 in the Circular dated 19.07.2001 at Annexure-AA to the amended writ petition. The said condition which excludes eucalyptus, casurina and other firewood trees for the purpose of assessment of compensation, reads as under:
“4. Malkies such as eucalyptus, casurina and other firewood trees shall not be considered for payment, but the land owners may be permitted to remove the malkies”.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that the land being an immovable property necessarily includes all that is not included by Sec.3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and that Sec.3 excludes only the standing timber, growing crops or grass; the eucalyptus and casurina trees not being one of the said three, the impugned Condition of the Circular is legally unsustainable.
3. After service of notice, the learned HCGP Shri Dildar Shiralli and the learned panel counsel Shri G.S.Vinay Kumar oppose the writ petition stating that in terms of the impugned condition in the Circular an option was there with the land owners to cut and remove the trees and that no explanation is offered by the land owners as to why they did not do it; they also point out that there was no impediment for felling of the eucalyptus and casurina trees and also other fire wood trees and in any event had the petitioners pointed out their difficulty, the respondents would have done some alternate arrangement. So arguing, both the learned counsel for the opposing parties, seek dismissal of the writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP, and also the learned panel counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. I have perused the case papers.
5. The impugned condition No.4 in the circular that excludes the standing casurina trees, eucalyptus trees and firewood trees on the land which is subject matter of acquisition militates against the definition of land given under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and other kindred legislations. Section 3(a) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (now repealed) reads:
“the expression ‘land’ includes benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth”.
6. The definition of ‘land’ in the Land Acquisition Act is similar to that of words ‘immovable property’ in the General Clauses Act, 1897. Section 3(25) of the latter Act states that immovable property includes land, benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. It has to be noted that in Section 3 of the Transfer of property Act and Section 2(b) of the Indian Registration Act “immovable property” is defined as not including ‘standing timber, growing crops or grass’. But, under Section 3 of this Act ‘land includes benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth’.
7. The word land is a comprehensive term which includes standing trees, buildings, fences, stones, as well as the earth we stand on. Standing trees must be regarded as part and parcel of the land in which they are rooted and from which they draw their support. To interpret the expression ‘land’, in its narrow sense is to render the benevolent provisions of the act impotent and ineffective. It has therefore to be held that, ‘land’ under this Act will include buildings, trees and standing crops.
8. Section 2(11) of the KIADB Act, 1966 defines the expression ‘land’ by adopting the definition given under Section 3(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Both the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the General Clauses Act, 1897 define the expression ‘immovable property’ to include, land, benefit to arise out of land and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. That being the position of law, relief cannot be denied to the petitioners by enforcing condition No.4 of the circular in question, which militates against the law, the logic and the reason.
9. The contention advanced on behalf of the respondent KIADB that the petitioners could have removed these standing trees as suggested in the condition No.4 of the circular and the same having not been allegedly removed, there being no justification whatsoever therefor, no relief can be granted to them in writ jurisdiction falls foul of the legal position. Therefore, the value of casurina trees, eucalyptus tree and firewood trees need to be ascertained for the determination of the compensation payable for the land in acquisition.
10. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider petitioners representation dated 25.07.2013 at Annexure-E, ignoring Condition No.4 mentioned above stipulated in the Circular dated 19.07.2001 at Annexure-AA and by treating the trees in question as being part of the land acquired, for the purpose of determination of compensation, within three months and further to inform the petitioners the result of such consideration forthwith.
11. It is open to the respondents 2 and 3 to solicit any information or document from the side of the petitioners as are required for due consideration of the aforesaid representation subject to the rider that no delay shall be brooked in that guise.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/