R.S.A. No. 920 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 920 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 27.3.2009 The Collector, Kaithal, and another .......... Appellants Versus Sunder Singh and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Madan Gupta, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the appellants. Mr. Anil Malik, Advocate, for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.12.2007 vide which the learned Courts below decreed the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff /respondents restraining the defendant/appellants from cutting and removing the trees, and further restraining the defendants from interfering in the work of cutting and removing the trees by the plaintiffs standing on the land of the plaintiffs measuring 15K-9M comprised in Khewat No. 533, Khatauni No. 662 Rect No. 232, Killa No. 24/2(2-4), 25(5-18) Rect. No. 233 Killa No. 21/1(7-7) situated within the revenue estate of village Bata, Tehsil and District Kaithal. The plaintiffs / respondents brought a suit on the plea that they R.S.A. No. 920 of 2008 (O&M) -2- were owners in possession of the land, referred to above, wherein they planted safeda trees, which were sought to be cut by the appellant/defendants without any right. In the written statement objections were taken wherein it was claimed that the trees in question have been planted by the defendants, therefore, they have right to cut and remove the trees, though the ownership of the plaintiffs over the land was not denied. 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 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, R.S.A. No. 920 of 2008 (O&M) -3- 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. ( Vinod K. Sharma ) Judge March 27, 2009 R.S.