Appeal dismissed. Bench held that approbation of an appeal fails when the demarcation report only stated trees grew on the canal patri without confirming the patri belonged to the plaintiffs' land. No error in evidence appreciation found.
The appeal is dismissed; judgment and decree below are upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
vinod kumar 2014.05.15 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
RSA No.2491 of 2014 (O&M)
[ 1 ]
*********
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2491 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision:08.05.2014
Jaswinder Singh and others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate, for the appellants. *****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J .
The plaintiffs are in appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which their suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed.
Briefly, the case of he plaintiffs is that they are co-sharers in possession of the suit property bearing khasra nos.1138 and 1141 in which there are 42 eucalyptus trees on their land on the bank of Western Yamuna Canal, but defendants no.2 and 3, who had no right, title or interest in the said trees, are bent upon to cut them illegally and forcibly. The plaintiffs got their land demarcated and as per the report, it was revealed that all the eucalyptus trees are grown on their land.
On the other hand, it was pleaded by the defendants that the trees were planted by the Forest Department at WJC lower, RD 169 to 172 right side. The land of the plaintiffs also adjacent to the WJC lower, but the
vinod kumar 2014.05.15 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2491 of 2014 (O&M) [ 2 ]
*********
land in which the trees were planted has been declared as protected forest and was under the ownership of Irrigation Department earlier, who had transferred the same to the Forest Department for the purpose of management vide Government of Haryana notification dated 03.03.1972. The plaintiffs thus cannot claim ownership of those trees. They also pleaded that according to the report of the Range Forest Officer, Indri dated 29.11.2011, the trees were planted by the Forest Department and the expenditure incurred in this regard was also entered in the cash book. It was further pleaded that at the time of demarcation, no information was given to them and as such, the demarcation is not binding upon them.
On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the Trial Court on 18.01.2013 and, thereafter, both the parties adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence.
The Courts below have found that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the trees are grown on the land owned by them. It is observed that in the demarcation report, the only observation made is that the trees are grown on the patri of WJC canal, but it is no-where provided in the report that the patri of WJC canal, on which the trees have been grown, is a part and parcel of the land owned by the plaintiffs.
Counsel for the appellants has contended that there is an error in the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below as the report of demarcation has been misread. It is submitted that PW2 Ram Kumar, Kanoongo, had also prepared the site plan in which he had shown the patri of WJC canal falling in khasra nos.1138 and 1141 and as such, the trees
vinod kumar 2014.05.15 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
RSA No.2491 of 2014 (O&M)
[ 3 ]
grown on that parti also belong to the plaintiffs.
I have heard counsel for the appellants and carefully considered his arguments.
As a matter of fact, the whole case hinges upon the report of PW2 in which he had only observed that the trees in question are grown on the patri of WJC canal. Not a single word has been said by PW2 in his report that the patri of WJC canal, over which the trees have been grown, is part and parcel of the land owned by the plaintiffs. In the absence of a positive report about the ownership over the patri on which the trees have been grown, there is no scope for upsetting the judgment and decree of both the Courts below as it would not fall within the definition of substantial question of law as there is no misreading of evidence by the Courts below.
Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and
hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
May 08, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower courts erred in not drawing an adverse inference when the demarcation report failed to explicitly state ownership of the canal patri on which trees grew.
Whether the suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding trees grown on disputed land should be allowed on appeal.
Jaswinder Singh and others
State of Haryana and others
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
