RSA No. 3306 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3306 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 27 , 2009 State of Haryana and others ...... Appellants Versus Ram Gopal ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.P.S.Sullar, DAG, Haryana for the appellants. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgement of the learned lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial court and thereby decreeing the suit of the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from cutting and removing the trees planted on his land. The following questions have been proposed”- i) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court is sustainable in the eyes of law? ii)Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court is contrary to evidence,documentary as well as oral, produced on record? iii)Whether the plaintiff-respondent can claim an injunction against the defendant-department with regard to the trees which are part of protected forest declared by way of RSA No. 3306 of 2009 (O&M) 2 notification of the Government? iv)Whether a demarcation report prepared in the absence of the competent Officer of the defendant-department can be relied upon? It would be seen that questions No. (i), (ii) and (iv) are pure questions of fact. After dealing with the entire evidence learned Lower Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff has been able to prove that the trees were planted on the land belonging to him. Learned DAG has not been able to convince me that the findings recorded on these questions of fact are based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. As regards question No. (iii) this court in a similar case in Divisional Forest Officer v. Mohd. Hanif reported as 2009(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 527 held as follows:- “I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. I find no merit in the appeal. The fact that the plaintiff-respondent is owner in possession o the land on which the disputed trees are standing is not disputed. From the copy of the demarcation report, it is evident that the disputed trees are standing in the land on which the plaintiff-respondent is recorded as owner in the revenue record. No doubt, it is claimed by the appellants that they have planted and nurtured the disputed trees and the area has been declared as a protected forest area but such exercise does not vest any right in the department because the trees belong to the owner of the soil where they have been planted. The settled law on the point in that a tree belongs to the owner of the land and not to the planter. For taking this view, I am supported by a judgment of this Court in the case of Ghasi Ram v. Arun Kumar, 2006(1) RCR RSA No. 3306 of 2009 (O&M) 3 (Civil) 751: (20-06-2) 143 PLR 63. The notification issued by the State that the whole area has been declared as protected forest under a valid notification issued by the State does not vest ownership of the trees in the appellant-State.” In view thereof this question has to be answered against the appellant. Consequently this appeal and the application for stay as well are dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 27 , 2009 sunita