Standing sandalwood trees must be valued before removal, with valuation challenges left to the appropriate court.

The petitioners in W.P. No. 27636/2025 challenged four notices dated 29 August 2025 that valued sandalwood trees standing on their lands acquired under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act).

They argued that the valuation of ₹845 per tree, based on a Forest Department memorandum, was inadequate, relying on an earlier High Court decision that had valued six-year-old trees at ₹12,954 each.

In connected W.P. No. 10928/2025, an industrial plot allottee sought possession of the plot free of encumbrances and interest on the allotment price.

The petitioners’ earlier proceedings had resulted in directions to reconsider the tree valuation, and the valuation notices challenged here followed.

1. Whether the valuation notices fixing compensation for the sandalwood trees at ₹845 per tree should be quashed or replaced with the valuation adopted in an earlier case.

2. Whether the KIADB should be directed to remove or otherwise address the trees and hand over possession of the allotted industrial plot.

The acquisition was undertaken under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the KIAD Act, which provide for preliminary and final notifications for acquisition.

The Court did not lay down a substantive valuation formula or finally determine the trees’ value.

Instead, it directed the Forest Department authority (respondent No. 3) to value the trees within three months, left the petitioners at liberty to challenge that valuation before the appropriate court, and directed the KIADB to act on the valuation and proceed with handing over the plot.

The order also referred to earlier proceedings concerning valuation and the disposal of sandalwood trees, but did not independently determine their legal effect in this case.

The Court noted the petitioners’ reliance on the earlier valuation of ₹12,954 per tree and on the Division Bench’s direction concerning disposal of sandalwood trees, which the respondents did not dispute.

It nevertheless did not adopt that valuation or quash the challenged notices on the merits.

Instead, it left valuation to respondent No. 3, preserved the petitioners’ right to seek enhancement before the appropriate court, and linked the KIADB’s handover obligations to completion of the valuation and removal of the trees.

Respondent No. 3 was directed to value the trees within three months of receiving the order; thereafter, the KIADB was to coordinate removal of the trees and hand over possession to the allottee.

W.P. No. 10928/2025 was also disposed of, with directions to hand over the allotted industrial plot and execute the necessary documents after the trees were evaluated and removed.