RSA No. 376 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA No. 376 of 2008 Date of decision: 10.03.2008 State of Haryana and others ...Appellants Versus Bhupinder Singh ...Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nirmal Yadav -.- Present : Mr. Siddharth Batra, A. A.G. Haryana, for the Appellant – State -.- Nirmal Yadav, J. (Oral) The State of Haryana has challenged the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge ( Senior Division) Jagadhari, vide which the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of 45 eucalyptus trees, comprised in Khewat No. 304, Khatauni No. 503, Khasra No. 42//22//2, 50//3/1, 4/1, situated at Village Balachour, HB No. 312, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar, adjacent to Dadupur-Chhachhrauli Road by way of cutting, removing and selling the same in any other manner, has been decreed and that of learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar passed on 12.11.2007, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. According to the plaintiff, he had planted several trees on his land, however, the appellants/defendants are trying to remove/cut the same RSA No. 376 of 2008 2 by taking advantage of the land being adjacent to Dadupur-Chhachhrauli road. After going through the entire facts and evidence on record, both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the land, where the trees are in existence, belongs to the plaintiff, which fact is also substantiated from the statement made by PW3 Harnek Singh. The appellants/ defendants have not been able to prove by any cogent evidence that the trees in question were planted or owned by the forest department. Nothing has been shown to take a view contrary to that of both the courts below. It cannot be said that the findings so recorded are either perverse or based on no evidence. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. (Nirmal Yadav) Judge March 10, 2008 mohan