R.S.A. No. 2145 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2145 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.05.2009 Divisional Forest Officer, Yamuna Nagar, and others ....appellants versus Sheo Ram and others ....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. O.P. Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 6376-C of 2009 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved for condoning the delay of 75 days in filing the appeal. It has been averred in the application, that the delay has occurred due to administrative formalities required for filing the appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit. In view of the averments made, C.M. is allowed and the delay of 75 days in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No. 2145 of 2009 (O&M) -2- R.S.A. No. 2145 & C.M. No. 6377-C of 2009 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.12.2008 passed by the learned Courts below, decreeing the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff/respondents, restraining the defendant/appellants from interfering in actual, physical and peaceful possession of the plaintiffs as owners over the land and also for restraining the defendant/appellants from cutting and removing the safeda trees of the plaintiff/respondents standing in their land, or in any manner whatsoever. The plaintiffs filed a suit on the pleadings that the plaintiff/respondents were owners in possession of the land measuring 5 kanals 17 marlas, situated in village Meerpur, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that the plaintiff/respondents are owners in possession of the property in dispute. The appellant-State was trying to cut the trees standing on their land, on the plea that the trees were planted by the Forest Department. The learned Courts below decreed the suit. 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 recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the trees were planted by the appellant-defendants and therefore, their right to cut the trees could not be defeated merely because the R.S.A. No. 2145 of 2009 (O&M) -3- plaintiff/respondents are owners of the land. In support of the 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 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 R.S.A. No. 2145 of 2009 (O&M) -4- No.192 plaintiffs would agree to give up vacant possession. Mr. Ahmed, however, in the absence of 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 and another (supra) by the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana is misconceived. The judgments passed by the learned courts below are in R.S.A. No. 2145 of 2009 (O&M) -5- consonance with the law laid down by this court. The substantial question of law 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. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 25, 2009 R.S.