1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 169/2007 (Ramesh Tulshiram Solav & another VERSUS State of Maharashtra, By Collector, Amravati & 2 others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. Chandurkar, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 06, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is mainly aggrieved by the judgments passed by both the Courts whereby the Courts have refused to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendant nos.1 and 2 from cutting the five big Babhool trees standing on the Dhura “IC”. According to the counsel for the appellant, the respondent nos.1 and 2 had no authority to cut the Babhool trees standing on the suit field. The challenge laid by the appellants to the judgments on the ground of refusal of the aforesaid 2 relief is not well founded as it is clearly observed by the first appellate Court that the cause of action for seeking permanent injunction, restraining the State authorities from removing the Babhool trees, did not arise at all as the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 08.12.1994 did not direct the removal of the five big Babhool trees standing on the suit property. Neither the order of the Tahsildar nor the order of the Additional Commissioner directs the removal of the five big Babhool trees standing on the land of the appellant. It is clear from the order of the Tahsildar as well as the Additional Commissioner that the authorities did not intend or desire to cut the five big Babhool trees standing on the plaintiffs' land. Therefore, the apprehension of the appellant that the respondents would cut the five big Babhool trees without any legal sanction or authority is misconceived. The relief sought by the plaintiff to the aforesaid extent is refused solely because there was no cause of action to restrain the respondent nos.1 3 and 2 from cutting the alleged trees. There was nothing on record to show that the respondents desired to cut the Babhool trees standing on the plaintiffs' property. Since no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE