RSA No.460 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.460 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 3.11.2008 State of Haryana …… Appellant versus Siria and others …….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * * Present: Mr. Bhupinder S. Beniwal, DAG, Haryana for the appellant. Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 7. * * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . 1. This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction whereby the defendant set no.1 are restrained from cutting or removing the trees from the suit land comprised of Khasra No.454 except after adopting due process of law. They are also restrained from putting the suit land comprised of Khasra No.454 to auction except after acquiring the same in accordance with law. 2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the land comprised in Khasra No.454 is owned and possessed by them and defendant set No.1 (i.e. Now appellants) have nothing to do with it. They had planted a number of trees in the land in question. At the time of filing the suit, three Pipal trees were standing whereas one Neem tree, one Sahtut tree and three Shisham trees were cut and were lying in the land in suit. The defendant set No.1 were all out to cut the standing trees and to remove the trees lying in the land in suit forcibly and illegally. They had requested the defendant set No.1 not to do RSA No.460 of 2008(O&M) 2 so but as the defendant set No.1 were adamant, hence the necessity to file the present suit arose. 3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants set No.1 to 3 it was contended that the plaintiffs were not in possession of any part of the land in suit. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. The suit was not maintainable. The land comprised in Khasra No.454 was owned and possessed by the Canal department. There was already existed a Canal Rest House which was constructed in the year 1890. No objection was raised by the plaintiff, defendant set No.2 or their predecessor in their interest. The trees were planted by Canal Department and thus, they have got every right to cut and remove the trees. The entries in the revenue record in the name of the plaintiff and defendant set No.2 were not binding on their rights and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. 4. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 7.3.2005 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. 5. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 6.12.2007. 6. Still not satisfied, the defendant-appellants have filed this appeal on the ground that the trees in question were planted by the Canal Department. The land comprised in Khasra No.454 is in possession of Canal Department. The Forest Department is looking after the said trees being a protected forest and the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 are applicable to these trees. The plaintiff-respondents did not raise any objection at any time and as such they are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct. The defendant-appellants are fully competent to cut and remove the trees. There is no evidence on the file to RSA No.460 of 2008(O&M) 3 prove that the plaintiff-respondents had planted the trees in question and they spent any amount on the trees. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 8. I find no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The fact that the plaintiff-respondents are owners in possession of the land on which the disputed trees are standing is not disputed. No doubt the plaintiff-respondents have claimed that the disputed trees were planted and nurtured by the appellant-Department and being looked after as a protected forest area but such exercise will not vest any right in the Department because the trees belong to the owner of the soil to which they are affixed. The settled law on the point is that a tree belongs to the owner of the land and not to the planter. I am supported by a judgment of this Court in the case of Ghasi Ram v. Arun Kumar 2006(1) PLJ 390 (P&H) in taking my above view. 9. For the reasons recorded above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. 10. Dismissed. September 17, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE