RSA No.582 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.582 of 2010 Date of Decision: 06.05.2010. Ram Saran and others .……Appellants Versus Forest Range Officer and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate for Mr. S. S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the appellants. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiffs Ram Saran, Balvinder Singh and Raj Kumar have filed the instant second appeal, having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Appellants filed suit against respondents i.e Forest Range Officer, District Forest Officer and State of Haryana alleging that plaintiffs' father Fattu was in possession of the suit land since the year 1964 continuously on payment of Rs.35/- per annum at Chakota (rent). State Government was recorded to be owner of the suit land. Plaintiffs' father made the suit land cultivable. After his death, plaintiffs inherited his rights in the suit land. Plaintiffs planted eucalyptus and Shisham trees in the suit land in 1987-88 and their father had also planted some trees in the suit land. However, the defendants started threatening to cut and remove the said trees and started interfering when the plaintiffs started cutting the said trees. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining the RSA No.582 of 2010 -2- defendants from doing so. Defendants inter alia pleaded that the suit land has been notified as reserved forest by State of Haryana vide notifications dated 03.06.1988 and 29.12.1989. It was pleaded that defendants are owners in possession of the suit land and trees in question were also planted by the defendants in the suit land. It was denied that plaintiffs or their father ever remained in possession of the suit land or that the trees were planted by them. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhari vide judgment and decree dated 22.03.2007 dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Yamunanagar vide judgment and decree dated 03.11.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that plaintiffs' father has been recorded to be in possession of the suit land in the revenue record since 1978-79 and the plaintiffs came in possession of the suit land after the death of their father and the plaintiffs were never dispossessed from the suit land and, therefore, the plaintiffs continue to be in possession of the suit land. On careful consideration, I find no merit in the aforesaid contention which although apparently appears to be very attractive. Even in jamabandi for 1978-79 Ex.P-2 which is the earliest revenue RSA No.582 of 2010 -3- document available on record, the suit land was mentioned to be forest area. Consequently, the question of planting the trees in 1987- 88 by the plaintiffs or prior to it by their father, would not arise. Plaintiffs' father died on 26.06.1984. However, even thereafter, in jamabandi for 1988-89 Ex.P-3, jamabandi for 1998-99 Ex.P-4 and Khasra Girdawari Ex.P-5 for Kharif 1998 and Rabi 1999 and khasra girdawari Ex.P-6 dated 28.10.2004, plaintiffs' father Fattu was recorded to be in possession of the suit land. Apparently, these entries are factually incorrect and, therefore, these entries can be given no credence. Plaintiffs' father had expired in the year 1984, but entries in his favour continued in the revenue record till more than 20 years after his death. Moreover, the suit land was already forest area, even in the year 1978-79. It was declared to be reserved forest area vide notifications dated 03.06.1988 and 29.12.1989 and, therefore, thereafter the plaintiffs could not have been in possession of the suit land being reserved forest area. It is also worth mentioning that the plaintiffs, after the death of their father Fattu, never paid any rent or Chakota. In fact, there is not even an entry regarding rate of rent in the revenue record after the death of plaintiffs' father. Plaintiffs' oral evidence was also found to be not reliable to prove their possession over the suit land. The said evidence has also been analysed by the Courts below. There is concurrent finding by the Courts below that plaintiffs are not proved to be in possession of the suit land nor their father was proved to be in possession thereof. It is also not proved RSA No.582 of 2010 -4- that trees in question were planted by the plaintiffs or their father. Aforesaid finding of the Courts below is based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 06.05.2010. A. Kaundal