R.S.A. No.3342 of 2007 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
R.S.A. No.3342 of 2007
Date of Decision:17.10.2008
State of Haryana and others
.....Appellants
Vs.
Madan Lal and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. K.S. Godara, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
for the appellants.
Mr. V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parshant Vashisth,
Advocate for the respondents.
****
HARBANS LAL, J.
The facts giving rise to this case are that the plaintiffs are
owners in possession of the suit land on which they had planted good
number of Shisham as well as Kikkar trees more than 12 years ago. The
trees are now ripe for felling. The defendants have illegally enumerated on
26 trees and are claiming one half value of the wood. Earlier, they had
felled 11 Shisham/Kikkar trees valued at Rs.30,000/-. The defendants are
interfering in the rights of the plaintiffs to do so. As against this, the
defendants have come up with the plea that the disputed trees were planted
by the Forest Department on the southern side of Jagadhri- Buria Road,
which were nourished and enumerated by their officials. Thus, the State is
the owner of the wood standing there. Since the area has not been lawfuly
demarcated, the plaintiffs cannot claim exclusive right on the trees in
question. As alleged 13 trees were given to the plaintiffs towards 50% as
the price of the trees in view of the scheme formulated by the State
R.S.A. No.3342 of 2007 -2-
Government. The following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the
property in dispute, as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
permanent injunction on the grounds, as alleged? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the
present suit? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiffs are legally estopped from filing
the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD
5. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD
6. Relief.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining
the evidence on record, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Jagadhri decreed the suit vide his judgment/ decree dated
31.7.2006 with the observations that “However, it is made clear that the
plaintiffs shall be liable to deposit 15% of the value of the trees in question
standing in their land, planted and maintained by the Forest Department, in
Government exchequer as and when they intended to cut and remove these
trees.” The defendants feeling aggrieved therewith, went up in appeal,
which has also been dismissed by the Court of learned District Judge,
Yamuna Nagar vide his judgment/ decree dated 9.6.2007. Being undaunted
and dissatisfied therewith, the defendants have preferred this appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides
perusing the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and
circumspection.
Mr. K.S. Godara, DAG, Haryana has urged with great
R.S.A. No.3342 of 2007 -3-
eloquence that the learned trial Court has directed the plaintiffs-
respondents to deposit 15% of the value of the disputed trees, whereas
according to the observations made by this Court in R.S.A. No.3137 of
1998, bearing caption `Haryana State and others v. Naresh Kumar and
others‘, decided on 6.5.1999, the plaintiffs should have been directed to
deposit 30% of the value of the trees in dispute and thus the impugned
judgments/ decrees are liable to be modified. He has produced the certified
copy of the judgment delivered in the above-mentioned regular second
appeal.
To overcome these submissions, Mr. V.K. Jain, learned Senior
Advocate, representing the plaintiffs- respondents by placing reliance upon
the observations made in re: Hakim Hari Ram etc. v. Santa Ram etc.,
1955 Punjab Law Reporter 6; Panni Lal v. Med Singh, 1987 Punjab
Law Journal 56; Ghasi Ram v. Arun Kumar, 2006(1) Recent Civil
Reports (Civil) 751 and State of Haryana and others v. Shadi (died)
represented by his legal representatives, 2003(1) Recent Civil
Judgments 102 argued that the defendants/ appellants are not entitled to get
even 15% of the value of the disputed trees.
I have well considered the rival contentions. In unreported case
of Naresh Kumar (supra), this Court has observed that “Since the trees
were planted on the land of the plaintiffs by the Forest Department on the
direction of PWD Department, the learned Additional District Judge rightly
directed the Forest Department to give 30% share of the case before me.” In
the case of Hakim Hari Ram, etc. (supra), the Division Bench of this
Court has held as under:-
“Trees belong to the owner of the soil. If a person plants
R.S.A. No.3342 of 2007 -4-trees on land not belonging to him, the trees belong to the
owner and not to the planter. If a person plants trees on joint
land, the trees belong to all the co-sharers and not the planter
alone. Whether the land on which the trees stand should in
partition be allotted to the planter or not, is a question which
relates to the mode of partition and should be decided by the
Revenue Officer and cannot be decided by the Civil Court.”
Further in re: Panni Lal’s case (supra), it has been held by
this Court that “the trees planted by predecessor-in-interest of defendant on
land in ownership of plaintiff belong to the owner of land and not to
planter. The defendant cannot remove the trees.” Again in re: Ghasi
Ram’s case (supra), it has been observed by this Court that “the trees upon
the land are part of the land and that the right to cut down and sell those
trees is incidental to the proprietorship of the land. The trees being a fixture
with the land remain belonging to the landlord irrespective of the land being
on rent or lease and the trees even being planted by the tenant / lessee.” In
re: Shadi (died) represented by his legal representatives’ case (supra),
it has been observed that “Since, it has been held that the land where the
trees were planted by the Forest Department belonged to the plaintiff-
respondent (represented by his legal representatives), so the plaintiff-
respondent had become owner of the disputed trees. For these reasons, the
First Appellate Court had held that the value of the trees to the extent of
85% would be taken by the plaintiff- respondent and the remaining 15% by
the Forest Department which had planted the trees. I have no reason to
differ from the conclusion arrived at by the First Appellate Court.”
Adverting to the facts of the instant case, needless to say, both
R.S.A. No.3342 of 2007 -5-
the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs are liable to
deposit 15% of the value of the disputed trees. In view of Shadi (died)
represented by his legal representatives’ case (supra), no contrary view
can be taken to these findings. It is worth pointing here that the plaintiffs-
respondents have not posed a challenge to the direction given to them by the
Courts below to deposit 15% of the value of the disputed trees either by
filing a separate appeal or cross-objections. Thus, in view of the
observations rendered in re: Shadi (died) represented by his legal
representatives’ case (supra), the above findings returned by both the
Courts below are not liable to be disturbed. More to the point, no substantial
question of law arises in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.
October 17, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No