IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.440 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 27th November, 2008 State of Haryana and others … Appellants Versus Smt. Charno Devi and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Jayender Singh Chandail, Addl. AG, Haryana for the appellants. Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In the present case, the suit was filed by Ajmer Singh, through his legal representatives, that he is owner in possession of 29 kanals 6 marlas of land, detailed and described in the head note of the plaint. It was stated therein that he is owner of the suit land and various trees of Eucalypts, poplar and shisham are standing in the suit land. It was further stated that the State of Haryana, through Commissioner and Secretary, Forest Department, intends to cut and remove the trees alleging the same to be their own, whereas, the land has not been acquired. Notice of the suit was issued. Joint written statement was filed by the defendants. It was stated therein that all those trees were planted by the Forest Department several years ago and as per the Government record, all the trees are being looked after and nourished by the Forest Department. It was stated Regular Second Appeal No.440 of 2008 (O&M) that plaintiff never raised any objection to the plantation of the trees, therefore, plaintiff had no concern, right or title with the trees in question. Trial Court, after conclusion of the pleadings, had drawn the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the land detailed in the heading of the plaint? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit? OPD 7. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 8. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice u/s 80 CPC? OPD 9. Whether the defendant is entitled to special cost? OPD 10. Relief. Plaintiff examined Virender Singh as PW-1. State examined Dilbagh Singh, Range Forest Officer as DW-1. Trial Court relied upon the testimony of Virender Singh, copy of jamabandi (Ex.P-1) and khasra girdawri (Ex.P-2) and also the certified copy of demarcation report (Ex.P-3) given by the Local Commissioner. In the present case, relief sought was that the department should not cut and remove the trees. Trial Court held that simply because trees have been numbered, the Government cannot cut and remove the trees from the private land. Aggrieved against the same, State had filed an appeal. Appellate Court, after examining the evidence, held that there was no 2 Regular Second Appeal No.440 of 2008 (O&M) reason to differ with the findings on issues, recorded by the trial Court, therefore, the findings of the trial Court were concurred with. Mr. Jayender Singh Chandail appearing for the State has stated that the trees were planted to save the land from soil erosion. He further states that as per the notification dated 11th June, 1971, Government can declare the strips of Government forest land or waste land as the land transferred to the Forest Department. He has been unable to state as to when the land belonging to the plaintiff has been transferred to the Forest Department. No evidence to this effect was led. Even otherwise, it has been stated that the trees have been planted to safe the land from soil erosion. Relief sought by the plaintiff was that the trees should not be cut or removed. Only this relief has been granted by the two courts below. Therefore, relief granted by two courts below is in consonance with the object projected by Mr.Jayender Singh Chandail before this Court. Therefore, I find no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the two courts below, which have been arrived at, after appreciating the evidence. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 27, 2008 rps 3