Punjab-Haryana High Court
The State Of Haryana And Ors vs Angrej Singh And Ors on 7 November, 2013
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
Manoj Kumar
R.S.A. No.1675 of 2010 (O&M) #1#2013.11.08 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No.1675 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 07.11.2013
The State of Haryana and Ors.
.............Appellants
v.
Angrej Singh and Ors.
.............Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl.A.G, Haryana for the appellants.
None for respondent Nos.1 to 6.
Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for respondent Nos.7 & 8.
Jaswant Singh,J(Oral).
Defendant-State is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments passed by both the courts below whereby the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dabwali vide its judgment and decree dated 2.5.2007 decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-State from uprooting the trees standing in the suit land since the same was found to be in ownership of the plaintiffs; and the findings thereof were duly affirmed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 2.2.2009.
Both the courts below had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs based upon the report of the Local Commissioner holding that the alleged trees stood planted in the land belonging to the plaintiffs and the defendants had no concern with the same.
Since the dispute was with regard to the demarcation R.S.A. No.1675 of 2010 (O&M) #2# conducted in violation of the Regulations, this Court vide order dated 24.5.2011, on the request of both the parties had directed the Naib Tehsildar, Dabwali to conduct a fresh demarcation of the suit land after due notice to the parties.
Accordingly, demarcation report dated 9.9.2011 was submitted by the Naib Tehsildar, Dabwali wherein it is reported that the said trees are standing in the land owned by the plaintiffs and the defendants have no concern with the same.
It is conceded that no objection was filed by the State regarding the said report and the same was accepted to be correct.
In view of the aforesaid factual position, as depicted in the demarcation report dated 9.9.2011, there is no merit in the present second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
November 07, 2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE