RSA No. 3866 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- RSA No. 3866 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.05.2008 State of Haryana and others .......Appellant(s) Versus Bud Ram and others .......Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NIRMAL YADAV Present: Mr. Siddharth Batra, AAG, Haryana for the appellant - State Mr. V B Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2 None for respondent No. 3 -.- NIRMAL YADAV, J. (Oral) C M No. 10904 C of 2007 This is an application for condonation of delay of 184 days in filing the present appeal. Heard learned counsel for the parties. For the reasons mentioned therein, the application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. C M No. 4888 C of 2008 Reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, is taken on record. Disposed of. Main case The State of Haryana has challenged the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri RSA No. 3866 of 2007 (O&M) 2 decreeing the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants/appellants from cutting and removing 30 eucalyptus trees standing on plaintiff's land bearing Khewat No. 28/21, Khatouni No. 42 min, Khasra Nos. 9//14, 17, measuring 15 kanals, situated at village Rajheri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, as per jamabandi for the year 1995-96 and the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2007 passed by learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, thereby, affirming the findings recorded by the trial Court. According to the plaintiff, he is a co-owner in possession of 16 kanals of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Rajheri, District Yamuna Nagar, on which, he had grown 30 eucalyptus trees, but the defendants have unlawfully enumerated those trees with the intent to lay claim over them. In support of his assertion, he placed on record a copy of jamabandi for the year 1995-96 (EX.P3), mutation No. 1820 (Ex.P4) and demarcation report (EX P1). From these documents, it is well proved that the plaintiff's is the joint owner in possession of the suit land. Even as per the demarcation report, EX.P1, 30 eucalyptus trees were found to be in existence on the suit land. On the other hand, the defendants/appellants have failed to lead any evidence in support of their claim. Since, the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land, the defendant-forest department does not have any right, title or interest over the trees planted on the suit land. More-so, there is nothing on record to show that the Forest Department has taken the suit land on lease or otherwise from the plaintiff's to plant the trees. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view to the one RSA No. 3866 of 2007 (O&M) 3 taken by both the Courts below. It cannot be said that the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below are, either perverse or based on misreading of evidence. No question of law, much less substantial questions of law, arises for determination in the instant appeal. Resultantly, the regular second appeal is dismissed. [NIRMAL YADAV] JUDGE May 26, 2008 mohan