RSA No.3005 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3005 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 17.9.2008 State of Haryana …… Appellant versus Mangta Ram and others …….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * * Present: Mr. Bhupinder S. Beniwal, DAG, Haryana for the appellant. * * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . CM No.8874-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded in the application, delay of 42 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.3005 of 2008(O&M) 1. This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondents for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from cutting and removing the trees of the plaintiffs and further restraining the defendants from interfering in the work of cutting and removing the trees by the plaintiffs standing in the land measuring 19 kanals 15 kanal comprised in Khewat No.152, Khatauni No.202, Khasra No.61//16/1, 62//11/3, 12, 19/1, 19/2, 20, Khewat No.13, Khatauni No.19, Khasra No.62 //7.8 situated within the revenue estate of village Jubbal-41, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar vide Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 and vide Mutation No.1716, has been decreed. RSA No.3005 of 2008(O&M) 2 2. It is the case of the plaintiff-respondents that the land in dispute is jointly owned and possessed by them and they are cultivating the same. There are trees standing on the suit land which have now grown into mature trees. When the respondents started to cut the trees in question, the officials of the defendant-appellants obstructed them and they also threatened to cut and remove those trees. The defendant-appellants 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. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellants stating that the plaintiff-respondents 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 than 25 years ago on the Govt. land i.e. on Jubbal Tubewell Channel. 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 No.S.O.41/C.A.16/27/S.29/72 dated 3.3.1972. The trees had been planted nourished and protected by the Forest Department. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of present injunction, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the RSA No.3005 of 2008(O&M) 3 suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC? OPD 8. Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs? OPD 9. Relief.” 5. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 5.6.2007 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. It is pertinent to mention here that the onus of proving issues No.2 to 8 was upon the defendant-appellants. However, no evidence to prove these issues was placed on record by defendant-appellants nor these issues were pressed during the course of arguments and therefore, the same were decided by the trial Court against the defendant-appellants as not pressed. 6. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 6.5.2008. While dismissing the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court held as under: “No doubt the same have been marked and enumerated by the Forest Department but such exercise will not vest any right in the department because the trees belong to the owner of the soil to which they are affixed as has been held in Ghasi Ram v. Arun Kumar 2006(1) PLJ 390 (P&H). The settled law on the point is that a tree belongs to the owner of the land and not planter. Therefore, the copy of enumeration register RSA No.3005 of 2008(O&M) 4 (Ex.D1), copy of expenditure register (Ex.D2) and the notification issued by the State (Ex.D3) shall not tilt the balance in favour of the appellants/defendants.” 7. Still not satisfied, the defendant-appellants have filed this appeal on the ground that the Courts below have overlooked the fact that the plantation was made by the Forest Department on the land in question about 25 years ago. The trees grown up on the said land were declared as protected forest by way of a notification and therefore, the same cannot be cut without permission from the competent Authority. Moreover, the suit for injunction against the appellants is not maintainable and has sought to raise the following substantial question of law :- “Whether the plaintiff-respondents can be held to be the owners of the trees planted by the Department of Forest and declared as protected forest through the valid notification.” 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 9. I find no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The fact that the plaintiff-respondents are owners in possession of the land on which the disputed trees are standing is not disputed. From the copy of the demarcation report EX.P4, it is evident that the disputed trees are standing in the land on which the plaintiff- respondents are recorded as owners in the revenue record. No doubt, the appellants have relied upon the copy of enumeration register Ex.D1, copy of expenditure register Ex.D2 and copy of notification dated 3.3.1972 Ex.D3 to support their claim that the disputed trees were planted and nurtured by the appellant-Department and have been declared as a protected forest area but such exercise will not vest any right in the RSA No.3005 of 2008(O&M) 5 Department because the trees belong to the owner of the soil to which they are affixed. The settled law on the point is that a tree belongs to the owner of the land and not to the planter. I am supported by a judgment of this Court in the case of Ghasi Ram v. Arun Kumar 2006(1) PLJ 390 (P&H) in taking my above view. The notification issued by the State that the whole area has been declared as protected forest under a valid notification issued by the State will not vest ownership of the trees in the appellant-State. 10. For the reasons recorded above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. 11. Dismissed. September 17, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE