Regular Second Appeal No. 1704 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1704 of 2007. (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.3.2009 *** Surender & Anr. .. Appellants VS. State of Haryana & ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ajay Gulati, AAG Haryana. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 265 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. This is plaintiffs' regular second appeal, who since have non- suited by the Courts below in a suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs have been found to be the owners of the land, which as per report of local commissioner (Ex.P3), was found unauthorizedly occupied by the defendants, upon which the latter planted Kikar trees. The plaintiffs claimed injunction against the defendants from removing or cutting the said trees. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on technical ground that the suit simplicitor for permanent injunction without seeking possession of the land is not maintainable. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the instant appeal can be decided at the motion stage, since the issue involved therein is no more res integra. Even there has been a consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, in this respect. In the cases of Panni Lal Vs. Medi Singh 1987 PLJ 56 and Hakim Hari Ram Regular Second Appeal No. 1704 of 2007 2 Vs. Santa Ram 1955 PLR 6, followed in the case of Ghasi Ram Vs. Arun Kumar 2006(1) PLJ 390, it has been laid down by this Court that the owner of the land becomes the owner of the trees planted on his land by another person. As said above, the plaintiffs have been concurrently held to be the owners of the suit land over the trees are planted by the defendants and thus, the right vested only with them to remove the same. However, to secure the ends of justice, it would be desirable that the value of the trees to the extent of 85% would be taken by the plaintiffs, the land owners while the defendants are entitled to remaining 15%, who had undisputedly planted the trees. For arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified with the case reported as State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Shadi(died) through his LRs 2003(1) PLJ 90. Learned State counsel has failed to show any contrary law. In view of the above, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside in the manner indicated above. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE March 23,2009 Jiten