Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Jasbir Singh And Another --Respondents on 12 July, 2010
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
RSA No.1492 of 2008 (O&M) 1
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Decided on 12.7.2010.
State of Haryana and others --Appellants
vs.
Jasbir Singh and another --Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Anjum Ahmad,Addl.A.G.,Haryana,for the appellants Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, Defendants are in second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction has been decreed.
Briefly, the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging themselves to be the owners in possession to the extent of ½ share of the land comprised in Khewat No.45/2, Khatauni Nos.93,94,95, Khasra Nos.12/16/25, Khewat No.107 min, Khatauni No. 197, Khasra Nos.10/12/ 19/21 situated in village Gloudi, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, on which they have 58 eucalyptus and 3 kikkar trees, in respect of which the defendants have no right, title or interest. It was alleged that on the remaining ½ portion of the aforesaid land, one Ram Singh had also trees, RSA No.1492 of 2008 (O&M) 2 who had filed a similar suit for permanent injunction against the defendants titled as "Ram Singh etc. Vs. State of Haryana etc. which was decreed and the appeal filed by the State of Haryana, was dismissed.
In reply, the defendants claimed that saplings of trees were planted by the Forest Department in the year 1981-82 on the embankment known as 'Gloudi Bandh'. Therefore, they are owners of the trees and have a right to cut and remove them.
On the pleadings of the parties,following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction sought? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the suit? OPD
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
4. Relief.
After taking the evidence of both the sides, the learned trial Court decreed the suit holding the plaintiffs to be owners of the land and restrained the defendants from cutting and removing 85% of the total trees. However, they were held entitled to 15% of the trees on the ground that they had planted and nourished them.
Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants came up in appeal in which the judgment of the trial Court was upheld as the learned First Appellate Court could not find any reason to differ with the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court. It held that the trees would belong to the owner of soil as held by this Court in the case of Panni Lal Vs. Med Singh 1987 P.L.J 56, therefore, the Forest Department cannot be declared owner of the trees only on the ground that they had RSA No.1492 of 2008 (O&M) 3 planted saplings and nourished them. The Appellate Court, however, agreed with the trial Court that the defendants be allowed to take 15% of the total trees.
The plaintiffs did not challenge the judgment and decree of both the Courts below whereby right to remove 15% was given to the defendants, but the present appeal has been filed by the defendants in which it has been argued by the learned counsel for the State that instead of 15%, they should have been given the right to remove 30% of the total trees.
As a matter of fact, no substantial question of law has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants except for making prayer for enhancing the right to remove trees from 15% to 30% , in my opinion, there is no error in the judgment and decree of both the Courts below and in the absence of any substantial question of law as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.
12.7.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge