R.S.A. No. 1495 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- R.S.A. No. 1495 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.05.2008 State of Haryana and others .....Appellants Versus Jarnail Singh ......Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NIRMAL YADAV Present: Mr. Siddharth Batra, AAG, Haryana for the appellants -.- NIRMAL YADAV, J. (Oral) C.M. No. 4684 C of 2008 This is an application for condonation of delay of 88 day in filing the present appeal. Heard. For the reasons mentioned therein, the application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Main appeal The State of Haryana has challenged the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri decreeing the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants/appellants from cutting and removing 29 trees standing on plaintiff's land bearing Khewat No. 109, Khatouni No. 199, Khasra Nos. 24//9, 24//12/1, 24//12/2 and 24/19/1, situated in village Pabni Kalana, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar and the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2007 passed by learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, thereby, affirming the findings recorded by the trial Court. R.S.A. No. 1495 of 2008 (O&M) 2 According to the plaintiff's, he is the owner in possession of the suit land on which he had grown eucalyptus trees, but the defendants have unlawfully enumerated those trees with the intent to lay claim over them. In support of his assertion, he placed on record a copy of jamabandi for the year 1997-98 (EX.P1) and demarcation report (EX P3). From these documents, it is well proved that the plaintiff's is the owner in possession of the suit land. Even as per the demarcation report, EX.P3 as well as the Local Commissioner's report, 29 eucalyptus trees were found to be in existence on the suit land. On the other hand, the defendants/appellants have failed to lead any evidence in support of their claim. Since, the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land, the defendant-forest department does not have any right, title or interest over the trees planted on the suit land. More-so, there is nothing on record to show that the Forest Department has taken the suit land on lease or otherwise from the plaintiff's to plant the trees. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view to the one taken by both the Courts below. It cannot be said that the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below are, either perverse or based on misreading of evidence. No question of law, much less substantial questions of law, arises for determination in the instant appeal. Resultantly, the regular second appeal is dismissed. [NIRMAL YADAV] JUDGE May 19, 2008 mohan R.S.A. No. 1495 of 2008 (O&M) 3