RSA No.471 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.1370-C of 2010 & RSA No.471 of 2010 Decided on : 04.02.2010 State of Haryana & others ... Appellants versus Brij Bhushan ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. K.C.Bhatia, Addl. AG, Haryana for the appellants. **** 1.To be referred to the reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) CM No.1370-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 107 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.471 of 2010 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent whereby he has sought permanent injunction restraining the appellants from cutting and removing the 24 trees of eucalyptus and 2 trees of shisham which are standing on the land owned by the respondent. The plea of the appellants was that the land and the trees belong to the appellants and thus, the plaintiff-respondent RSA No.471 of 2010 -2- has no connection with the same. Both the Courts below have found as a matter of fact that the land on which trees are standing belong to the respondent. Following questions of law have been proposed: i) Whether the judgment and decree passed by ld. Addl. Distt. Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri is sustainable in the eyes of law? ii) Whether the Forest Department which has planted nourished enumerated the trees in question on the government land is not the real owner of the trees under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980? iii) Whether in view of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 the trees in the area of protected forest can be fell without the prior approval of the government? iv) Whether the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CWP No.202 of 1995 is applicable in the present case? Question No.(i) is general question. As regards question No.(ii), ld. Courts below have relied upon the judgments of this Court to hold that the trees belong to the land and not to the planter. Learned counsel for the appellants is not in a position to deny the correctness of this finding. As regards question No.(iii), in my opinion, the said question even if has to be answered in favour of the appellants, does not arise in the present case. It was nowhere the case of the appellants that the respondent wanted or attempted to cut the trees in violation of RSA No.471 of 2010 -3- law. If the respondent does so then the appellants would take action as per law. As regards question No.(iv), Ld. Lower Appellate Court has gone through the notification on the strength of which the appellants claim that the land was protected forest and after analyzing, the same, found that the notification cannot be held to apply to private land. Consequently, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CWP No.202 of 1995 vide judgment dated 12.12.1996 (which dealt with common areas) cannot be held applicable to the present case. Thus, holding the proposed questions against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed. February 04, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE