R.S.A.No.4142 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.4142 of 2008 Date of Decision : 13.07.2009 State of Haryana and Others ...Appellants Versus Ram Kishan ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Kulbir Narwal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the appellants. Mr. J.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land measuring 32 kanals, situated at Village Ganola, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar, was decreed. It is the case of the plaintiff that 189 eucalyptus trees have been planted by the plaintiff, but the defendants are adamant in cutting and removing the said trees illegally and unauthorisedly. In the written statement, the stand of the defendant-appellants is that trees belong to Forest Department as they were planted in the year 1989-90 by the Forest Department on forest land. The expenses for plantation and nourishment were borne by the Forest Department. The trees have been planted in the area which has been declared to be protected forest vide notification dated 9.6.1966. R.S.A.No.4142 of 2008 2 In support of the respective contentions, the plaintiff have produced revenue record as well as demarcation report on the basis of which, a finding was returned that the plaintiff is owner of the aforesaid land. On the other hand, the defendants have examined Pawan Kumar, Range Forest Officer, Chhachhrauli as DW-1. In his cross-examination, he admits that the Forest Department has nothing to do with the trees or the land of the plaintiff. The statement of this witness has been made basis for decree of the suit. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that DW-1 Pawan Kumar has produced the expenditure register of the Department, which shows the plantation of the trees by the Forest Department over the land in dispute and, therefore, even if the plaintiff is owner of the suit land, the appellants are entitled to cut and remove those trees as a person, who has planted those trees. However, the said contention cannot be accepted in view of the statement of DW-1 Pawan Kumar, who has in his cross-examination categorically stated that Forest Department has nothing to do with the plantation of the trees or of the land of the plaintiff. Thus, both the Courts have recorded findings of fact while granting decree in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the said statement, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 13.07.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE