R.S.A. No. 1419 of 2008 1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 1419 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 24.3.2009
Divisional Forest Officer, Yamuna Nagar & others
.......... Appellants
Versus
Jai Pal & others
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present : Mr. Madan Gupta, Sr. DAG, Haryana
for the appellants.
Mr. Amit Goel, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments
and decree dated 17.1.2008 vide which the learned Courts below decreed
the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff /respondents
restraining the defendants from cutting and removing the trees of the
plaintiffs, and further restraining the defendants from interfering in the work
of cutting and removing the trees by the plaintiffs standing in the land
measuring 11K-16M comprised in Khewat No. 114, Khatauni No.
148/1Min, Khasra No. 57//11Min (1-10), 20 Min (4-8), Khatauni NO. 149,
Khasra No. 57//11Min (1-10), 20 Min (4-8), situated within the revenue
estate of village Jubbal, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
The plaintiffs / respondents brought a suit on the plea that they
R.S.A. No. 1419 of 2008 2
were owners in possession of the land, referred to above, wherein they
planted 16 trees, which were sought to be cut by the appellant / defendants
without any right, title or interest.
In the written statement objections were taken wherein it was
claimed that the trees in question have been planted by the Forest
Department which has been declared protected forest by the Haryana
Government and, therefore, they have right to cut and remove the trees.
On appreciation of evidence, the learned Courts below have
recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs were owners in
possession of the suit property and even if defendant / appellants planted the
said plants still the same go with the ownership, and therefore, decreed the
suit.
Shri Madan Gupta, the learned senior DAG, Haryana contends
that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law for
consideration by this Court :-
“Whether the judgments and decree passed by the learned
Courts below are perverse in view of the finding
recorded that the trees were planted by the appellants,
therefore had right to claim benefits thereof ?
In support of the substantial question of law the learned senior
DAG, Haryana has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ghulam Rasool and another Vs. State of Jammu and
Kashmir and Another (1983) 4 Supreme Court Cases 623 to contend that
defendant / appellants would have right to cut the trees.
This plea of the learned senior DAG, Haryana cannot be
R.S.A. No. 1419 of 2008 3
accepted in view of the decision of this Court in the case of RSA No. 2703
of 2008 titled State of Haryana and others Vs. Gurdev Singh, decided on
16.3.2009.
The substantial question of law is answered against the
appellant /defendants, and the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
24.3.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE