RSA No.645 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.645 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.5.2010 State of Haryana ......Appellant(s) Versus Ashwani Kumar ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Deepak Girhotra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellants from cutting and removing the standing trees from the suit land as detailed in the plaint forcibly and illegally, has been decreed. As per the averments made in the suit, the plaintiffs were the owners in possession of the suit land and had planted 83 trees on the aforesaid land which includes 34 trees of Eucalyptus, 46 trees of Kikar, 2 trees of Neem and 1 of Shisham adjoining the link road from the G.T. Road to Kesri Bita road. It was averred that the said trees were planted about 25 years ago and they have been looked after since then by the plaintiffs. The defendant-appellants without any right, title or interest in the said trees wanted to cut and remove them illegally and forcibly. Hence, the present suit was filed. Upon notice, the defendant-appellants filed written statement taking various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that the land of the plaintiffs was adjacent to Kesri Bita road . The trees were RSA No.645 of 2010 (O&M) 2 planted by the Forest Department on Government land on the sides of the road. The Mohra-Kesri-Bita road has been declared as protected forest vide Government of Haryana Notification dated 11.6.1971. Denying other averments dismissal of the suit was prayed for. On consideration of evidence, the trial Court found that the suit land was owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. However, they failed to prove that the disputed trees were standing on their land and they ever planted the trees on the suit land and thus, dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred which was accepted by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13.11.2009 holding that the trees in question are standing in the suit land belonging to the plaintiffs. It was further observed that the defendants have no right to cut and remove the trees in question standing thereon and that the owner of the land would be entitled to the trees standing thereon even if the same were planted by some other person. Not satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, the State of Haryana has filed this appeal. Challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that it has been proved on the file that the disputed trees were planted by the Forest Department on the sides of the Mohra-Kesri-Bita road which was declared as protected forest by the Haryana Government vide notification dated 11.6.1971 and since these trees were nurtured by the appellants and therefore, the appellants cannot be restrained from cutting and removing them. On the basis of the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal: RSA No.645 of 2010 (O&M) 3 “Whether the trees planted as a protected forest by notification dated 11.6.1971 could be cut or said to be owned by the plaintiff?” I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment and decree. Admittedly, the suit land on which the trees are standing belong to the plaintiff-respondents. The only argument raised by the appellants that the aforesaid trees were planted and nurtured by them and therefore, they have a right to cut and remove the same is without any merit. In State of Haryana and others v. Shadi (died ) through his LRs 2003(1) PLJ 90 (P&H), it was observed by Hon'ble High Court that if trees are planted on land of another person, then that person becomes owner of trees and the person, who planted the trees is not entitled to remove those trees. In that case also the Forest Department planted the trees on the suit land which belonged to the plaintiff. It was held that the Forest Department was not entitled to cut and remove the trees. In Ghasi Ram v. Arun Kumar 2006(2) SLJ 1192 (P&H) also it was observed that trees upon the land are part of the land and the right to cut down and sell these trees in incidentally to the proprietorship of the land. In The State of Haryana & others v. Satnam Singh & another (supra), land belonged to the plaintiff and the trees were allegedly planted by the State and the State issued notification declaring the trees as protected forests. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court that as the land was held to be of private individuals, therefore, it could not be declared protected forests. The trees always belonged to the land owner and not planter. It was further held that the trees in question were not protected RSA No.645 of 2010 (O&M) 4 forests. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellants has raised an argument that nobody can cut the trees without permission of the Competent Authority in a protected forests area even if the trees in such a protected forest belongs to a private person. The aforesaid argument raised by the appellants is liable to be noticed and rejected simply on the ground that as per their own assertion vide notification dated 11.6.1971, the trees standing on the Mohra-Kesri Bita road were declared as protected forest and not the trees standing on the land of the plaintiff- respondent. Even otherwise, the relief claimed by the plaintiff-respondent in this case is to restrain the appellants from cutting and removing the trees which belonged to them and no counter claim as such has been preferred by the appellants. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. No other point was urged. Dismissed. May 11, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE