IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1494 of 2008 Date of Decision : May 19, 2008 Divisional Forest Officer, Yamuna Nagar ....Appellants Versus Ram Kishan and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. A.K. Rathee, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. T.P.S. MANN, J. After remaining unsuccessful in both the learned lower Courts, wherein suit filed by the respondents for permanent injunction was decreed and the appeal filed by the appellants against the same dismissed, the latter have moved this Court by filing second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case of the respondents was that on the eastern side of their land situated within revenue estate of village Jubbal, they had planted trees of Safaida, Shisham, etc. A canal runs by the side of their land. When they started to cut the trees planted by them in their land, they were obstructed by the officials of the appellants from doing the same, although they had no right, title or interest. Regular Second Appeal No. 1494 of 2008 The case of the appellants, in their written statement ,was that the trees in question had been planted by the Forest Department on the bank of the canal in the government land, which was declared a protected forest by the Haryana Government vide notification dated 3.3.1972. The Forest Department had enumerated and looked-after the trees. As they were owners in possession of the trees in question, they had every right to cut and remove them, whereas the respondents had no right, title or interest. They, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the suit. As mentioned above, suit filed by the respondents for permanent injunction was decreed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri on 1.12.2006 and the appeal filed by the appellants thereafter dismissed by learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar on 22.11.2007. It is clear from the judgments passed by the learned lower Courts that the plaintiffs-respondents are owners in possession of the land on which the trees in question are standing. Report Ex.P.4 regarding demarcation establishes that 47 number of eucalyptus trees, 14 of Shisham and 10 other trees stood within the area of the land owned by the respondents. The defendants- appellants have not lead any evidence to show that the land on which the trees are standing did not belong to the plaintiffs, but to them i.e. the defendants. Instead, they relied on the copy of the Enumeration -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 1494 of 2008 Register Ex. D1, Expenditure Register Ex. D2 and notification Ex. D3 to show that the trees in question were planted by the Forest Department in the year 1983-84 and, therefore, they belonged to the Forest Department of the State of Haryana. Mere fact that the trees have been marked and enumerated by the Forest Department would not make the Department its owner. The trees in question stood planted on the land belonging to the plaintiffs-respondents. Similarly, Expenditure Register Ex. D2 and notification Ex. D3 by themselves would not make the Forest Department as the owner of the trees. At the most, because of issuance of notification Ex. D3, whereby the entire area had been declared a protected forest, the trees cannot be cut by the land owners without seeking prior permission from the competent authority. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in concurrent findings arrived at by the learned lower Courts. No such substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellants, arise for determination. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) May 19, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO -3-