R.S.A.No. 3380 of 2007 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3380 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.8.2009 State of Haryana and another ......Appellants Versus Dalvinder Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms.Maloo chahal, DAG, Haryana, for the appellants. None for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs Dalvinder Singh, Jaswant Singh and Darshan Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cutting and removing 36 trees of Eucalyptus standing in land measuring 8 kanals 9 marlas comprising Khewat No.14 Khatauni No.18 Khasra No.18/1 situated at village Ambwala-288 Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamunanagar and further restraining the defendants from creating any obstruction in the process of harvesting of said R.S.A.No. 3380 of 2007 (O&M) 2 trees. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Jagadhari vide judgment and decree dated 12.4.2006. subject to deposit of 15% of the value of the trees in question by the plaintiffs. Both the parties went in appeal, which were dismissed by the District Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide judgment and decree dated 30.3.2007 and the findings of the trial Court were affirmed. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. It is the case of respondents/plaintiffs Dalvinder Singh and two others that they are owners in possession of the land comprised in Khewat No.14 Khatauni No.18 Khasra No.18/, measuring 8 kanals 9 marlas in all situated within the revenue estate of village Ambwala, Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamunanagar. They had planted 36 in number eucalyptus saplings on their own land which have now matured into full grown trees. The Forest Department of the State of Haryana has started asserting claim over those trees and its officials are bent upon felling and removing them. Hence, the suit. 3. It has been urged on behalf of the State of Haryana and the Divisional Forest Officer, Jagadhari that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit and that R.S.A.No. 3380 of 2007 (O&M) 3 their claim is without a cause of action and is thus not maintainable. The saplings were planted by the Forest Department within the area of Bilaspur Mulana Road which vests in the State. Its was declared protected forest by the State of Haryana per notification dated July 6, 1979. Therefore, the State has the unquestioned right to fell and remove the trees.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiffs are owners in possession of the disputed property, on the grounds as alleged? OPP 2. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD 6. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties? OPD 7. Relief. ” After hearing learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit. R.S.A.No. 3380 of 2007 (O&M) 4 The plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in Khasra No.18/1 (8-9) situated within the revenue estate of village Ambwala, Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamunanagar. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs examined Nanu Singh, Kanungo, who visited the spot and prepared demarcation report Ex.P-1. As per the demarcation report, 36 eucalyptus trees in question were standing in Khasra No.18/1. The said witness also proved on record Ex.P-2 Aks Sajra, Ex.P-3 attendance report prepared by him at the spot and Ex.P-4, copy of the jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 as per which Dalvinder Singh and Darshan Singh were recorded to be joint owners in actual possession of the suit land. The defendants, on the other hand, failed to rebut the demarcation report or establish that the trees in question were not standing in the land owned by the plaintiffs. The said finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, cannot be interfered with by this Court in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 17, 2009 anita