Judgment:
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
C.M. No. 9853-C of 2008
For the reasons recorded in the application, delay of 3 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
R.S.A. No. 3306 of 2008 (O&M;)
1. This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of they Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cutting and removing the Safeda trees standing in his land has been decreed.
2. It has been averred by the plaintiff that he is owner in possession of the land comprised in Khewat No. 144, Khatoni No. 189, Khasra No. 80(2-6) Bag Barani situated in Village Ganola, Tehsil-Chhachhrauli, District-Yamuna Nagar arid he had planted near about 15 Safeda trees in the suit land, out of which 11 trees have already elapsed and four Safeda trees are standing therein, which have been looked after and nourished by the plaintiff. Although, these trees have been planted by the plaintiff in his own land, but the defendants have unauthorisedly marked their demarcation numbers of ownership on the said trees and they wanted to cut and remove these trees without any authority. It has been further averred by the plaintiff that all these trees belong to him and as such, defendants may be restrained from cutting and removing these trees.
3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. Written statement on behalf of defendants No. 1 has been filed who has assailed the suit of the plaintiff on numerous grounds but primarily it has been maintained that the trees in dispute were planted by the Forest Department within the road limits known as Chhachhrouli-Bilaspur road and all these trees were looked after and nourished by the Forest Department and these trees have been numbered as 103, 105,106 and 107 in the final record. Hence, defendants are owners in possession of the land in dispute as well as the trees in question. Moreover, the area in which the trees are standing has also been declared as protected forest by Haryana Government vide notification No. S.065/C.A.-16/27/S.29/71 dated 11.6.1971 and all those trees which were planted by the Forest Department within the road limits in the Government land were the ownership of the defendants. It has been further averred by the defendants that for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute the demarcation of the land in question should be got conducted in the presence of Halqa Kanungo/Patwari as it shall be beneficial for the proper adjudication of the present matter, with these assertions, the defendants have prayed for dismissal of the present suit.
4. After appreciation of evidence led on the file by both the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent.
5. Appeal filed by the defendants challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Trial Court was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide impugned judgment and decree dated 17.7.2008.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record. I find no merit in the appeal. The fact that the plaintiff-respondent is owner in possession of the land on which the disputed trees are standing is not disputed. From the copy of the demarcation report, it is evident that the disputed trees are standing in the land on which the plaintiff-respondent is recorded as owner in the revenue record. No doubt, it is claimed by the appellants that they have planted and nurtured the disputed trees and the area has been declared as a protected forest area but such exercise does, not vest any right in the Department because, the trees belong to the owner of the soil where they have been planted.
8. The settled law on the point is that a tree belongs to the owner of the land and not to the planter. For taking this view, I am supported by a judgment of this Court in the case of Ghasi Ram v. Arun Kumar (2006-2)143 P.L.R. 63. The notification issued by the State that the whole area has been declared as protected forest under a valid notification issued by the State does not vest ownership of the trees in the appellant-State.
9. For the reasons recorded above, I find no illegality of infirmity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
10. Dismissed.