Civil Revision No. 7153 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7153 of 2010 Date of Decision: 18.4.2011 *** Commandant BSF .. Petitioner Vs. M/s Amin Chand & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. APS Mann, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondents No.2 to 4. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. By dint of impugned order dated 22.5.2010 the objections filed by the petitioner to the report of Local Commissioner, have been dismissed and the decree-holder-respondents have been allowed to cut 6800 trees, reported to be standing on the land, by the Local Commissioner. Heard. Let us first advert to the facts of the case. In the year 1982 land measuring 5653 kanals 09 marlas of the village Patiari, District Hoshiarpur was acquired by the Punjab State for the construction of field firing range for the petitioner-Border Security Force. The land owners since were not satisfied with the compensation assessed by the Government in respect of the trees standing on their land, an award was passed whereby they were given liberty to cut and remove the trees standing on their respective lands, Civil Revision No. 7153 of 2010 2 instead of compensation. Thereafter, finding some hindrance, the land owners filed the suit for permanent injunction for restraining the Punjab State, Chief Conservator Forests, Divisional Forest Officer, Hoshiapur and Commandant STC Border Security Force from interfering in their rights to cut and remove the trees along with natural growth situated within the area of village Patiari. The said suit was decreed on 14.9.1990 and the defendants therein were restrained from causing hindrance in the right of the plaintiffs of cutting and removing of the trees from their acquired land of village Patiari. The JDs then went in appeal, which was dismissed on 23.12.1992. The decree-holder then preferred an execution petition, which was decided on 6.5.1997 and they were granted six months' time to cut and remove the trees. The review petition was filed, which was decided on 14.8.2001. Still a revision petition was filed by the Jds before this Court, which was dismissed on 18.2.2002. The SLP filed by them met the same vide order dated 24.1.2003 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Ultimately, the Court below vide order dated 23.9.2008 directed the decree-holder to cut and remove the trees which were standing on the acquired land on the date of award only and a local commissioner was appointed to identify those trees. The local commissioner visited the spot and counted the trees and reported the same as 6800. The JDs then filed objection petition and disputed the figure of standing trees, reported by the local commissioner and pleaded that the decree holders are entitled to cut and remove the trees which were standing at the time of award only and the credit of growth of the trees in the land, the ownership of which was transferred in their names, goes to them. There is no dispute to this factual aspect of the matter. The perusal of report of local commissioner (Annexure P-4), it is evident that he marked 6800 trees standing on the land and failed to infer as to which tree was standing on the land at the time of award. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance upon Annexure P-7 i.e. the letter dated 5.2.1983 written by the Land Acquisition Collector, Hoshiarpur to respondent M/s Amin Chand & Company has pointed out that in the year there were 600 trees standing on the acquired land, the compensation of which was assessed Rs.6837/- by the LAC. No doubt, there is recital of having 600 trees in khasra No.426, but it is also a matter of record that the Civil Revision No. 7153 of 2010 3 said letter was not accepted by the respondent. The report of the local commissioner i.e. Range Forest Officer, Hoshiarpur reveals that he carried out the counting work by visiting the spot many times and obviously had spent good time on it. But it appears that the petitioner deliberately did not join the counting task carried out by the local commissioner. Later they came up with the objection that they were not joined in the counting, which surprisingly was carried out on their own land. Thus, it cannot be believed that they were not aware of the visiting of the local commissioner, especially when the order appointing the local commissioner was passed in their presence. Even the perusal of the impugned order reveals that nothing was produced by the petitioner to show that the most of the trees standing on the land were in fact planted by them after the acquisition of the land. Although, own witness of the petitioner i.e. Manish Kaul, Deputy Commandant, BSF, STC, Kharkar Kalan claimed that they have record of the trees which were planted by them, but neither that record was shown to the local commissioner nor to the Court for the reasons best known to them. Even this witness claimed that the trees at the time of plantation were marked by the BSF authorities, but no such record was again produced. For compliance of decree passed way back in the year 1990 the decree-holders are still knocking the doors of the Courts and the petitioner is dillydallying the matter on one pretext or the other. Taking into account all these facts, the learned Court below right believed the report of local commissioner and right directed the petitioner not to create any kind of hindrance at the time of cutting of trees by the decree-holder. There is no merit in the instant revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 18 , 2011 Jiten