RSA No. 2827 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2827 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.5.2011. State of Haryana .......Appellant Vs. Jugal Kishore and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that they were owners in possession of the suit land. The suit land abutted the land of Gohana distributory which had been declared as protected forest by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 3.3.1972. The defendants alleged that they had planted trees in the land belonging to the plaintiffs and wanted to cut and remove the trees standing on the land of the plaintiffs. Hence, suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendants, in their written statement, took the plea that the trees had been planted over the area of Gohana distributory as depicted in the site plan Ex. D-2 and the same had been declared as protected forest. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were RSA No. 2827 of 2008 (O&M) -2- framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiffs are owners in possession of agriculture land, as detailed in para one of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands? OPD 6. Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs under section 35-A CPC? OPD 7. Relief.” The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 11.6.2007 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and restrained the defendants from interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 21.4.2008. It was further held that the parties were at liberty to get their respective land demarcated and if on demarcation, it was found that the trees were standing on the area of Gohana Distributory which was owned by State Government, then the decision in the present case would not be a bar for the defendants to cut and remove the trees from the said land. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am RSA No. 2827 of 2008 (O&M) -3- of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiffs had filed the suit for permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering in their peaceful possession qua the land measuring 4½ acres bearing Rectangle No. 140 of Kila No. 11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and Rectangle No. 142 bearing Killa No. 7, 8, 10 situated in the area of village Rair Kalan. As per the copy of the jamabandi placed on record, the plaintiffs were owners of the suit land. A presumption of truth is attached to the entries made in the jamabandi and the defendants had failed to rebut the same. The land of the defendants adjoins the property belonging to the plaintiffs. Trial court restrained the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Learned first appellate court has left the parties at liberty to get their respective land demarcated and in case on demarcation it was found that the trees were standing on the area of Gohana distributory, owned by the State Government, then the decision of the case would not be a bar for the defendants to cut and remove the trees from the said land. Thus, it was left open for the parties to get their respective land demarcated to resolve the dispute qua the standing trees. Hence, no interference by this court is called for. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 26, 2011 Gurpreet