R.S.A. No. 1419 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1419 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.3.2009 Divisional Forest Officer, Yamuna Nagar & others .......... Appellants Versus Jai Pal & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Madan Gupta, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the appellants. Mr. Amit Goel, Advocate for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 17.1.2008 vide which the learned Courts below decreed the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff /respondents restraining the defendants from cutting and removing the trees of the plaintiffs, and further restraining the defendants from interfering in the work of cutting and removing the trees by the plaintiffs standing in the land measuring 11K-16M comprised in Khewat No. 114, Khatauni No. 148/1Min, Khasra No. 57//11Min (1-10), 20 Min (4-8), Khatauni NO. 149, Khasra No. 57//11Min (1-10), 20 Min (4-8), situated within the revenue estate of village Jubbal, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. The plaintiffs / respondents brought a suit on the plea that they R.S.A. No. 1419 of 2008 2 were owners in possession of the land, referred to above, wherein they planted 16 trees, which were sought to be cut by the appellant / defendants without any right, title or interest. In the written statement objections were taken wherein it was claimed that the trees in question have been planted by the Forest Department which has been declared protected forest by the Haryana Government and, therefore, they have right to cut and remove the trees. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the suit property and even if defendant / appellants planted the said plants still the same go with the ownership, and therefore, decreed the suit. Shri Madan Gupta, the learned senior DAG, Haryana contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration by this Court :- “Whether the judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below are perverse in view of the finding recorded that the trees were planted by the appellants, therefore had right to claim benefits thereof ? In support of the substantial question of law the learned senior DAG, Haryana has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Rasool and another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Another (1983) 4 Supreme Court Cases 623 to contend that defendant / appellants would have right to cut the trees. This plea of the learned senior DAG, Haryana cannot be R.S.A. No. 1419 of 2008 3 accepted in view of the decision of this Court in the case of RSA No. 2703 of 2008 titled State of Haryana and others Vs. Gurdev Singh, decided on 16.3.2009. The substantial question of law is answered against the appellant /defendants, and the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 24.3.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE