RSA No.1861 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1861 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 4.05.2009 State of Haryana & Anr. ..Appellants Vs. Man Singh & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Ms.Navin Malik, Addl.A.G., Haryana, for the appellants. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) The State of Haryana has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to challenge the judgment and decree dated 31.1.2009 passed by the learned courts below vide which the appellant/defendants have been restrained from cutting the trees in the land standing in the name of the plaintiff/respondent. On appreciation of evidence, learned courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the trees in dispute are standing on the land belonging to the plaintiff/respondent whereas it is the RSA No.1861 of 2009 2 appellant/State which planted these trees. In view of the law laid down by this court in the case of Ghasi Ram Vs. Arun Kumar 2006 (1) PLJ 390 (P&H) it is to be held that the trees standing on the land belong to the owner of the land and not to the State who planted them. Once it was proved on record that the land on which the disputed trees were standing was in ownership and possession of the plaintiff/respondent the stand of the appellant/defendants that on account of having planted the trees they were entitled to cut them has rightly been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration of this court:- Whether the party who planted the trees is entitled to ripe the fruit thereof? The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the learned courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the trees were planted by the appellant-defendants and therefore, their right to cut them could not be defeated merely because the plaintiff/respondents were held to be owner of the land. In support of this contention learned Addl. Advocate General Haryana placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Rasool and another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and another, 1983 (4) SCC 623, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under:- “ The trial court as also the court of appeal had recorded a RSA No.1861 of 2009 3 clear finding that the plaintiffs were trespassers in regard to 6 kanals of land appertaining to survey No.192. The State admittedly is the real owner. The finding in the courts below that the plaintiffs have been in possession of the property from 1946 being one of fact, has rightly not been challenged either in the High Court or before us. It is on the basis of such possession that plaintiffs' counsel contended that the plaintiffs were entitled to protection against forcible dispossession. The suit was instituted on December 29, 1961. Plaintiffs who came to possession of the property in 1946 had, therefore, not perfected title to the property by the date of the suit. Plaintiffs' cause of action for the suit with reference to the property in survey No.192 was mainly on account of interference by the Block Development Officer with regard to the trees grown by them. Keeping in view the fact that the State was owner of the property and the land was required for a public purpose as stated by Mr.Ahmed in course of the hearing,we suggested to the plaintiffs' counsel that the plaintiffs should give up possession of the property in favour of the real owner and they could, if they so liked, remove the trees raised by them on this property. Mr.Mehta for the appellants agreed that given six months' time for removal of the trees grown on 6 kanals of land appertaining to survey No.192 plaintiffs would agree to give up vacant possession. Mr.Ahmed, however, in the absence of RSA No.1861 of 2009 4 instructions from the state was not prepared to concede to this arrangement. We have already indicated that the clear finding in the trial as also the appellate court is that the plaintiffs have grown the trees being in possession from 1946, the plaintiffs would, therefore, be entitled to appropriate the trees after removal and the State would not be entitled to raise any claim to the plantations. We agree of the view that six months' time should be allowed to the plaintiffs to cut and remove the standing trees from the six kanals of land appertaining to survey No.192 and they should deliver vacant possession of that property to the State through its public officers on or before April 1, 1984 as agreed to by their counsel.” However, on consideration of matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. This court in the case of Ghasi Ram Vs. Arun Kumar (supra) has been pleased to lay down that the ownership of the trees goes with the ownership of the land. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not on a point decided by this court. Hon'ble Supreme Court merely permitted a party to cut the trees, as the plaintiffs in the said case were found to be in illegal possession of the property. The liberty to cut trees was granted in consideration of their handing back the possession to the true owner. Reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Rasool and another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir RSA No.1861 of 2009 5 and another (supra) by the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana is, thus, misconceived. The judgments passed by the learned courts below are in consonance with the law laid down by this court. The substantial question of law, therefore, is answered against the appellants and in favour of the plaintiff/respondents. Consequently, this appeal being devoid of any merit is ordered to be dismissed in limine. 4.05.2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge