R.S.A.No. 2046 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2046 of 2008 Date of decision: 17.8.2009 Divisional Forest Officer, Yamuna Nagar and others ......Appellants Versus Rajinder and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms.Maloo chahal, DAG, Haryana, for the appellants. Mr.Satish Chaudhary, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was decreed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide judgment and decree dated 6.12.2007. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the District Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide judgment and decree dated 13.3.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate R.S.A.No. 2046 of 2008 2 Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. It is the case of respondents/plaintiffs that the land in dispute is jointly owned and possessed by plaintiffs No. 1and 2 and they are cultivating the same through Plaintiffs No.3 and 4. Seventy one in number eucalyptus trees, one in number Shisham tree and two in number Kikar trees standing on the suit land have now grown into mature trees. They had also got demarcated the suit land on June 12, 2006 through Sh.Gurdev Singh, Tehsildar (Retd.) in the presence of Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, Patwari and other persons. When the respondents/plaintiffs started to cut the trees in question, the officials of the appellants/defendants obstructed them and they also threatened to cut and remove those trees. As a matter of fact the appellants/defendants have no right, title or interest in the property in question and the trees standing thereon. Hence, the suit to injunct them from felling and removing the disputed trees. 3. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants/defendants that the respondents/plaintiffs are neither owners nor in possession of the land on which the trees in question are standing and as such their claim is not maintainable. They have further urged that the trees in question were planted by the Forest Department more R.S.A.No. 2046 of 2008 3 than 23 years agao within the limits of Radaur- Mustafabad road. The area on which the disputed trees are standing has been declared by the Government of Haryana as Protected Forest by way of a notification about 22-23 years ago. The trees had been planted, nourished and protected by the Forest Department. They were enumerated as per the records maintained by the department. Moreover, the suit is bad for non-joinder of Public Words Department as a party defendant.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction on the grounds as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable being time barred? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts from the Court? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs are legally estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD R.S.A.No. 2046 of 2008 4 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 8. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? OPD 9. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for want of notice u/s 80 CPC ? OPD 10. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 11. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 12. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the parties. I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained from cutting and removing the trees standing in the land owned by them. In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs proved on record a copy of the jamabandi for the year 2002- 03 Ex.P-1 and demarcation report Ex.P-2. As per the demarcation report, the trees in question were standing in the land owned by the plaintiffs. Khasra number in dispute are 840/2, 839/2 and 843/2. The case of the defendant State, on the other hand, was that the trees in question have been planted by the Forest Department. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence R.S.A.No. 2046 of 2008 5 on record, have given a finding of fact that the trees in question were standing in the land owned by the plaintiff. The defendants had failed to rebut the demarcation report as per which the trees in question were standing in the land owned by the plaintiffs. Even if the Forest Department has planted or nurtured the trees in question, they do not become owner of the trees as these are existing in the land owned by the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 17, 2009 anita