IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No.2428-C of 2009 and RSA No. 846 of 2009 Date of decision: 24.2.2009 State of Haryana and others … Applicant- Appellants. Versus. Baljit Singh … Respondent THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Sukant Gupta, Addl. AG Haryana, for the applicant-appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: C. M. No. 2428-C of 2009: For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 83 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No. 846 of 2009: This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by defendant- State of Haryana against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff, Baljit Singh, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cutting and removing the standing trees from his land, has been decreed. Plaintiff in his suit averred that he along with others is owner in possession of the suit land, situated adjoining Jagadhri-Bilaspur road, on which Safeda(eucalyptus) trees and other kind of trees are standing, which were planted and nourished by him. On both sides of Jagadhri-Bilaspur road, the defendants have also planted certain Safeda(eucalyptus) trees in the Kachha berms. The trees standing over the suit land are different than the trees standing on said Kachha berms, but the defendants by alleging that the trees standing over the suit land also belong to them having been planted by them, are bent upon to cut and remove the same. Upon notice of the suit, defendants in their written statement took up the stand that the land underneath the disputed trees was declared as a protected forest by the Government of Haryana by issuing notification dated 11.6.1971, Exhibit D- 2. It was stated that the Forest Department being the planter of the trees in question, is entitled to cut and remove the same irrespective of the RSA No. 846 of 2009 -2- ownership of the land underneath the same. Trial Court on appreciation of evidence adduced before it by the parties vide judgment and decree dated 18.12.2006 decreed the suit of the plaintif thereby holding the plaintiff along with other co-sharers as owner in possession of the suit land. It found that the Local Commissioner so appointed in his report Exhibit P-2 has categorically stated that after demarcating the suit land, he found the trees in question to be belonging to the plaintiff. Resultantly, the trial Court restrained the defendants perpetually from cutting and removing the trees from the uit land owned and possessed by the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.8.2008. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendants. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, on perusal of jamabandi for the year 1999-2000, Exhibit P-1, have concurrently held that plaintiff along with other co- sharers is owner in possession of the suit land; rather on the contrary, the defendants have failed to lay any claim regarding their ownership and possession over the suit land. It has also been so held in view of the report of the Local Commissioner, Exhibit P-2, wherein 24 trees having enumeration numbers were found standing over the suit land and none of the parties disputed the correctness thereof. The first appellate Court while noticing a judgment of this Court in Ghasi Ram v. Arun Kumar, 2006(1) PLJ 390, further concluded that even if the trees in question over the suit land were planted and nourished by the Forest Department, then also the defendants have no right to cut and remove the same. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. February 24, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE