STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS Vs. MANGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Haryana through Collector, Yamuna Nagar, defendants/appellants have directed the present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2009 passed by Shri Jagdeep Jain, learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide which the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 9.9.2008 passed by Civil Judge ( Junior Division ), Jagadhri dismissing the suit of the plaintiff was set aside and decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) The facts of the present case are that the plaintiff alleges that he is in actual, physical and cultivating possession as a co-sharer, in the land bearing khasra No. 15//12 and planted trees in the above said land which are standing at the spot and are owned and possessed by him. The defendants started threatening to cut and remove the above said trees of the plaintiff from his land illegally and forcibly without any right with the allegations that the trees are standing in the land of Forest Department. The demarcation of the land, which was conducted through commission in case No. 173/demarcation decided by A.C.IInd Grade, Jagadhri vide order dated 12.7.2004, the trees in question were found in his above said land. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a civil suit titled Mangat Ram Vs. DFO with respect to the suit land on 27.7.2004 in the court of Shri Atul Marya, Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), which was withdrawn by him on 28.7.2004 on the grounds of technical defect with the permission to file fresh suit. It is further averred that thereafter the plaintiff served a registered AD notice under Section 80 CPC upon the defendants over which they became annoyed and threatened to cut and remove the trees of the plaintiff from the above said land. Hence the suit.

(3.) Notice of the said suit was given to the defendants, who in their reply took a preliminary objection that the second suit filed by the plaintiff regarding the same matter is not tenable. The plaintiff is neither the owner nor in possession of the trees in question and he wants to grab the trees in question under the garb of present suit. It is further averred that the plaintiff never raised any objection at the time of acquisition of land for construction of road known as Pabni to Shekhpura and even at the time of plantation of threes in question by the forest department, which were planted by them 20 years ago and thereafter looked after and nourished by them. The defendants have placed on the file the Government record comprised in enumeration Register vide enumeration No. 66 to 73. It is alleged by the defendants that they are the owners in possession of the trees as well as the land underneath the same, but as the intention of the plaintiff has become dishonest, he has filed this frivolous suit and the same is not legally maintainable. It is further averred that the area in which the trees in question are standing has been declared as protected forest by the Haryana Government and the same are with in the road limits in the Government land and not in the land of the plaintiff.