IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.M. No.2428-C of 2009
and RSA No. 846 of 2009
Date of decision: 24.2.2009
State of Haryana and others ... Applicant-
Appellants.
Versus.
Baljit Singh ... Respondent
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR
Present: Mr. Sukant Gupta, Addl. AG Haryana,
for the applicant-appellant.
...
ARVIND KUMAR, J:
C. M. No. 2428-C of 2009:
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 83
days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of accordingly.
RSA No. 846 of 2009:
This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by defendant-
State of Haryana against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below
whereby suit of the plaintiff, Baljit Singh, for permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from cutting and removing the standing trees
from his land, has been decreed.
Plaintiff in his suit averred that he along with others is owner
in possession of the suit land, situated adjoining Jagadhri-Bilaspur road, on
which Safeda(eucalyptus) trees and other kind of trees are standing, which
were planted and nourished by him. On both sides of Jagadhri-Bilaspur
road, the defendants have also planted certain Safeda(eucalyptus) trees in
the Kachha berms. The trees standing over the suit land are different than
the trees standing on said Kachha berms, but the defendants by alleging that
the trees standing over the suit land also belong to them having been
planted by them, are bent upon to cut and remove the same. Upon notice of
the suit, defendants in their written statement took up the stand that the land
underneath the disputed trees was declared as a protected forest by the
Government of Haryana by issuing notification dated 11.6.1971, Exhibit D-
2. It was stated that the Forest Department being the planter of the trees
in question, is entitled to cut and remove the same irrespective of the
RSA No. 846 of 2009 -2-
ownership of the land underneath the same. Trial Court on appreciation of
evidence adduced before it by the parties vide judgment and decree dated
18.12.2006 decreed the suit of the plaintif thereby holding the plaintiff
along with other co-sharers as owner in possession of the suit land. It found
that the Local Commissioner so appointed in his report Exhibit P-2 has
categorically stated that after demarcating the suit land, he found the trees
in question to be belonging to the plaintiff. Resultantly, the trial Court
restrained the defendants perpetually from cutting and removing the trees
from the uit land owned and possessed by the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved,
the defendants preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the first
appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.8.2008. Hence, the
present second appeal by the defendants.
Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence
adduced by the parties, on perusal of jamabandi for the year 1999-2000,
Exhibit P-1, have concurrently held that plaintiff along with other co-
sharers is owner in possession of the suit land; rather on the contrary, the
defendants have failed to lay any claim regarding their ownership and
possession over the suit land. It has also been so held in view of the
report of the Local Commissioner, Exhibit P-2, wherein 24 trees having
enumeration numbers were found standing over the suit land and none of
the parties disputed the correctness thereof. The first appellate Court while
noticing a judgment of this Court in Ghasi Ram v. Arun Kumar, 2006(1)
PLJ 390, further concluded that even if the trees in question over the suit
land were planted and nourished by the Forest Department, then also the
defendants have no right to cut and remove the same. Nothing has been
shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer
from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law,
muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal.
Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is
hereby dismissed in limine.
February 24, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE