R.S.A. No.1318 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.1318 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30.03.2009 State of Haryana and another ....Appellants Versus Devi Dayal ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. O.P.Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the respondent. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal is directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 21.9.2006 and the first Appellate Court dated 15.12.2007. The respondent filed a suit seeking to injunct the appellants from cutting and removing the trees standing on the suit land which belonged to him. The appellants, who were defendants in the suit, pleaded that the trees in question belonged to the Forest Department as they had planted and nourished the same and hence they have the right to cut them also, as the trees had now attained the age of maturity. R.S.A. No.1318 of 2008 (O&M) -2- On appraisal of evidence, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the land on which the disputed trees were standing belonged to the plaintiff/respondent and there was no material on record from which it could be inferred that the trees belonged to the Forest Department. Accordingly, a conclusion was arrived at that the plaintiff/respondent being owner of the land was also entitled to harvest the trees since those were planted on his land. However, it was ordered that the respondent along with other co- owners shall deposit 15% of the value of the trees in dispute in the government exchequer as and when they intend to cut and remove the same. In appeal, the learned first Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are erroneous and that the appellants who had planted the trees were very well within their right to cut the same. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that a pure finding of fact has been arrived at by the Courts below that the land belonged to the respondent and that the trees being planted on his land, he was very well within his right to harvest the same and the appellants were held entitled to the value of the trees in dispute to the extent of 15% keeping in view the fact that the trees were planted and nourished by the appellants. No question of law is shown to have arisen in the present appeal. Therefore, the same being devoid of any merit is dismissed. R.S.A. No.1318 of 2008 (O&M) -3- That apart, the appeal is barred by an inordinate delay of 25 days which has not been explained satisfactorily. 30.3.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss