STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SHADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shadi plaintiff-respondent (represented through his LRs) had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the State of Haryana- appellant for restraining them from cutting and removing 21 Kikar trees alleged to be standing on the suit land owned by him, measuring 7 Kanals 8 Marlas. The said suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jagadhari vide judgment dated 16-11-1998. However, aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhari, vide judgment dated 9.10.2000 and it was held that the respondent-plaintiff (represented through his LRs) is owner of the suit land on which the disputed trees were standing and all the disputed trees belong to him which had been planted/managed by the Forest Department. Therefore, he ordered that value of the trees to the extent of 85% would be taken by the plaintiff-respondent (represented through his LRs) and the remaining 15% by the appellant. Still dissatisfied, the State of Haryana has filed the present Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) There is an application for condonation of the delay as there is delay of 88 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.

(3.) Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent (represented through his LRs) contended that it is well settled law that if the trees are planted on the land of another person, then that person becomes the owner of the trees and the person who has planted the trees was not entitled to remove the trees. For this contention, he placed reliance on three cases, Panni Lal v. Medi Singh, 1987 PunLJ 56: Hari Ram v. Santa Ram,1955 PunLR 6 and State of Punjab v. Satnam Singh and another (RSA No. 2089 of 1999) decided on 18.5.2000, which support the above contention of the learned counsel. Since it has been held that the land where the trees were planted by the Forest Department belonged to the plaintiff-respondent (represented by his LRs), so the plaintiff-respondent had become owner of the disputed trees. For these reasons, the first appellate Court had held that the value of the trees to the extent of 85% would be taken by the plaintiff-respondent and the remaining 15% by the Forest Department which had planted the trees. I have no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the first appellate Court.