TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THEY first occupied government land unauthorisedly, then got it regularised for cultivation and are now claiming the right to fell and remove the trees growing on the same. Applications seeking sale of the trees in their favour having been turned down the petitioners have filed these writ petitions, assailing the rejection orders. ( 2 ) THE petitioners unauthorisedly occupied two acres each of government land situate in sy. Nos. 85 and 86 of village channamallipura in gundlupet taluk of Mysore district. The unauthorised occupation was regularised for cultivation by the competent authority in terms of Section 94-a of the land revenue act by order dated 24th september, 1992. the trees growing on the land in question were however reserved in favour of the government and therefore continued to remain government property. A joint application was thereafter made on 20th of september, 1995, by the petitioners before the deputy conservator of forests, gundlupet, for permission to cut and remove the trees with a view to enabling them to extend their agricultural operations. This request did not find favour with the officer who rejected the same and asked the petitioners to forebear from cutting, removing or selling the trees in question which were government property. Even the tahsildar appears to have issued a similar communication, aggrieved whereof the petitioners filed W. P. nos. 41469 to 41473 of 1995 in this court seeking a direction against the respondents for grant of permission to them to cut and remove the trees in their respective parcels of the land. The writ petitions were eventually disposed of by my noble brother raveendran, j. By his order dated 6th of september, 1996. His lordship held that since the grant made in favour of the petitioners was only in respect of land unauthorisedly occupied by them, the trees growing on the same continued to remain government property and that the respondents were justified in forbidding the sale or removal of the said trees. A direction was all the same issued to the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's applications in accordance with Rule 11 (4) of the Karnataka land grant rules, 1969 with the observation that under the said Rule only such trees as were not reserved could be sold to the petitioners. A direction was all the same issued to the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's applications in accordance with Rule 11 (4) of the Karnataka land grant rules, 1969 with the observation that under the said Rule only such trees as were not reserved could be sold to the petitioners. An application for clarification of the said order was thereafter filed by the petitioners which was disposed of by this court on 2nd of july, 1997 with the observation that if the petitioners were aggrieved of the decision taken by the competent authority they shall be at liberty to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. The tahsildar has pursuant to the directions issued by this court rejected the petitioner's application seeking sale of the tree growth in their favour on the ground that the trees in question are reserved trees and cannot therefore be sold or allowed to be felled. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed these petitions as already noticed earlier. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the petitioners strenuously argued that the refusal on the part of the respondent/tahsildar to sell the trees growing on the land in question was in violation of the Provisions of Rule 11 (4) of the land grant rules, 1969. He urged that if the forest department failed to remove the tree growth on the granted land within a period of one year from the date of the grant, the petitioners acquired an indefeasible right to purchase the said trees on payment of the value assessed by the forest authorities. Since the department had failed to remove the trees within the stipulated period, the petitioner's right, argued the learned counsel, to purchase the trees could not be denied. It was also contended that the trees in question were not reserved trees, which expression it was contended, was limited to rose-wood and sandalwood trees only. Denial of permission to purchase the trees was according to the learned counsel contrary to the scheme of the rules. ( 4 ) IN order to properly appreciate the submissions urged at the bar, it is necessary to refer to a few Provisions of the Karnataka land revenue Act, and those contained in the Karnataka Forest Act. Section 94 of the Karnataka land revenue Act, prescribes penalties for unauthorised occupation of government land by any person including fine leviable at the stipulated rate. Section 94 of the Karnataka land revenue Act, prescribes penalties for unauthorised occupation of government land by any person including fine leviable at the stipulated rate. Section 94-a of the act inserted by act 2 of 1991 with effect from 20th of march, 1991 however provides an exception to the said Rule and envisages regularisation of unauthorised occupation by persons otherwise liable to eviction under Section 94 subject to the conditions stipulated therein including conditions as to the length of such occupation and payment of the fee prescribed. In terms of Section 94-a (6) (c), trees if any standing on the land granted and the granite in such land shall continue to belong to government which may at its discretion be disposed of by it in such manner as it may be deemed fit. The Provisions of Section 94-a, to the extent the same is relevant for the present may be extracted at this stage. "94-A. Regulation of certain cases of unauthorised occupation by constituting committee, etc, (1) subject to such rules as may be prescribed; the state government shall, by notification, constitute for each taluk a committee consisting of such number of members not exceeding three of whom one shall be a member of legislative assembly for the purpose of grant of land under sub-section (4); and xxx xxx xxx. (6) (c ). the trees, if any, standing on the land granted and the granite in such land shall continue to belong to the government, which may at its discretion be disposed off by it, in such manner as it may deem fit". a careful reading of the above would therefore show that the same provides for an independent machinery and is a complete code in itself, read with rules framed thereunder. The scheme of Section 94-a, it is evident is distinctly different from that underlying Karnataka land grant rules, 1969, no matter the said rules also owe their origin to the Karnataka land revenue act. The scheme of Section 94-a, it is evident is distinctly different from that underlying Karnataka land grant rules, 1969, no matter the said rules also owe their origin to the Karnataka land revenue act. A grant made under Section 94-a, cannot therefore be compared with one that is envisaged by the said rules nor would the scheme of the said rules fit in the scheme underlying section 94-a. This is apparent from a reading of the Rule 11 of the rules aforementioned, according to which the possession of any land granted under the rules cannot be delivered to the grantee unless the trees growing on the same are removed by the authorities of the forest department. In the case of a grant or regularisation made under Section 94-a, the question of delivering possession of the granted land after removal of the tree growth does not obviously arise for an order of regularisation or grant under the said Section itself proceeds on the basis that the grantee is in unauthorised occupation of the land for the stipulated period. So also, the other Provisions contained in the rules are not necessarily compatible with the philosophy underlying Section 94-a. I am therefore of the opinion that grants or orders of regulations made under Section 94-a are distinct from those made under the land grant rules, 1969. It would follow that the Provisions of Rule 11 of the said rules have no application to grants that are made under Section 94-a, nor would the said Rule create any right in favour of the grantee under the former provision to demand sale of the trees growing on the land unauthorisedly occupied by him, but regularised in his favour for cultivation. further in terms of Section 94-a (6) (c), trees standing on the land granted to any such unauthorised occupant would continue to vest in the government who shall have the discretion to dispose of the same, in such manner as it may deem fit not necessarily by offering the same to the grantee as is provided by Rule 11, supra. Reference may at this stage be made to Section 101 of the Forest Act, also according to which the state government is entitled by rules to regulate the preservation, reproduction and disposal of sandalwood trees and such classes of reserved trees as it deems fit. Reference may at this stage be made to Section 101 of the Forest Act, also according to which the state government is entitled by rules to regulate the preservation, reproduction and disposal of sandalwood trees and such classes of reserved trees as it deems fit. The expression "reserved trees" has been defined in Section 2 (15) of the Act, and includes a large variety of trees stipulated therein. Rule 128 of the forest rules framed under the act provides for preservation, re-production and disposal of the trees belonging to the government and may be usefully extracted:"ride 128. in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, "government trees" include all trees and their aftergrowth, on lands belonging to or in the occupation of private persons the right of government to which has been reserved under the Provisions of the Karnataka land revenue Act, 1964 or rules framed thereunder or any other act or rules in force as applying to any area within the state of karnataka. exemption. when all such trees in a survey number or holding are cut and removed, trees which may afterwards grow in such survey number or holding either from the stumps or roots of trees so cut and removed or otherwise shall not be government trees". ( 5 ) A plain reading of the above would show that government trees include even such trees as grow on lands belonging to or in occupation of the private persons but the right in regard to which has been reserved by the government under the land revenue act. When viewed in the light of Section 94-a (6) (c), the trees in question growing in the lands granted to the petitioners would certainly answer the definition of"government trees" which the occupants or the holders of such lands are under an obligation to preserve in terms of Rule 131 of the forest rules. the said Rule may also at this stage be re-produced. "rule 131. every occupant or holder of land or inam shall be responsible for the preservation of all government trees growing on such land or inam and shall, in the event of cutting, lopping, injuring, appropriating or removal of any such tree by whomsoever or from whatever cause, as soon as possible, report such fact to the nearest revenue or forest officer". every occupant or holder of land or inam shall be responsible for the preservation of all government trees growing on such land or inam and shall, in the event of cutting, lopping, injuring, appropriating or removal of any such tree by whomsoever or from whatever cause, as soon as possible, report such fact to the nearest revenue or forest officer". ( 6 ) THERE is therefore a clear statutory obligation cast on the occupant or the holder of any land not only to preserve all government trees standing on the land held by him but also to report any injury or appropriation of such trees by whomsoever to the nearest revenue or authorised officer. ( 7 ) THE matter can be examined from yet another angle. The felling of trees except in accordance with the permission of the competent tree officer is prohibited by Section 8 of the Karnataka preservation of trees Act, 1976. It provides that with effect from the appointed day, no person shall fell any tree or cause any tree to be felled in any land whether in his ownership, occupation or otherwise, except with the previous permission of the tree officer, any custom, usage, contract or liability for the time being in force notwithstanding. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 prescribes the procedure for the grant of permission to fell any tree and inter alia provides that any such application shall be accompanied by a site plan or survey sketch specifying the sy. No. And the girth of the trees sought to be cut and the reasons along with the consent of the owner and the occupant. There is thus a clear bar to the felling of any tree growing in any land whether in the ownership or occupancy of any person except with the permission of the tree officer. The tree officer before granting any such permission would require apart from other formalities the consent if the owner of the trees. In the instant case, the ownership of the trees as is admitted even by the petitioners vests in the state government. The tree officer before granting any such permission would require apart from other formalities the consent if the owner of the trees. In the instant case, the ownership of the trees as is admitted even by the petitioners vests in the state government. In the circumstances, not only because of the Provisions contained in rules 128 and 131 of the forest rules, referred to above but also by reason of the overriding Provisions contained in Section 8 of the preservation of trees Act, the petitioners are not only forbidden from felling any such tree but are bound to preserve the same. since the ownership of the trees in question is in the light of section 94-a (6) (c) vested unconditionally in the state government, who have the absolute discretion as to the disposal of such trees the application made by the petitioners seeking sale of the said trees in their favour under Rule 11 of the land grant rules wholly misconceived and was therefore rightly rejected no matter the rejection proceeded on a different ground. there is nothing before me to show that the trees in question which the respondents have declared as reserved trees are not actually reserved within the meaning of the said expression under the enactments referred to above. But even if they did not answer the definition of the reserved trees, it made little difference for regardless of the nature of the trees the ownership thereof vested in the government unconditionally and unequivocally under Section 94-a (6) (c ). The said provision cannot in my opinion be whittled down by the Provisions of Rule 11 of the land grant rules which were framed much before the introduction of Section 94-a in the act and did not therefore conceive of situations where the land was granted not in accordance with the scheme underlying the said rules but on a totally different basis. ( 8 ) IN the result, there is no merit in these petitions which fail and are hereby dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 1,000/- in each petition. --- *** --- .