IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.2159 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.2.2010 State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Gulab Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.P.S.Sullar, DAG, Haryana for the appellants. Mr.Rajender Chhokar, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. Delay of 125 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The State of Haryana has assailed the findings of the Addl.District Judge, Yamuna Nagar dated 16.10.2008 whereby the prayer of the plaintiffs/respondents for restraining the appellants from cutting and removing the eucalyptus trees standing on the suit land was granted in their favour. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court are erroneous and liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has contended that the matter is now squarely covered by the judgment of this Court reported as Ghasi Ram v. Arun Kumar, 2006(1) RCR (Civil) 751. The view expressed in some other R.S.A.No.2159 of 2009 (O&M) -2- judgments is to the effect that as per the well known maxim whatever is affixed to the soil becomes in contemplation of law a part of it and is subjected to the same rights of property as the soil itself. For the purpose of reference he relied upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hakim Hari Ram v. Santa Ram, 1955 PLR 6 wherein it has been observed as under :- “...trees upon land are part of the land and that the right to cut down and sell those trees is incidental to the proprietorship of the land.” xx xx xx xx xx “The real point for determination in the present case is whether the trees in question belong to the plaintiffs or defendants or jointly to both the plaintiffs and defendants. It is a well known maxim that whatever is affixed to the soil becomes in contemplation of law a part of it and is subjected to the same rights of property as the soil itself. It follows as a corollary that if a person plants a tree in the land of another the owner of the soil becomes owner also of the tree. To put in a slightly different language, a standing three belongs not to person by whom it was planted but to the owner of the land from which it draws its support and sustenance.” Similarly, while placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments this Court in Divisional Forest Officer v. Mohd. Hanif 2009(2) R.C.R.(Cvil) 527 also reiterated the aforesaid view. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the considered R.S.A.No.2159 of 2009 (O&M) -3- opinion that the injunction which was granted to the plaintiffs/respondents was rightly granted and the appeal is totally without any merit. Dismissed. 25.2.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss