JUDGMENT R.S. Verma, Member - In a case Section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. the trial court passed order of ejectment against Suraj Bali and imposed Rs. 1 as damages. In revision, the learned Additional Commissioner found that the order of ejectment was correct, but that the order of damages was excessive and he recommended that the amount of damages be reduced to Rs. 26/-. 2. The revisionist, Suraj Bali, had admitted that he had planted trees on Gaon Sabha land, but he has said that the plantation was done with the permission of the Gaon Sabha Pradhan. 3. The former Pradhan as well present Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha admitted that in Ban Mahotsav in accordance with the directive of the Government, Bali was allowed to plant trees on Gaon Sabha land. This evidence proves that possession of Suraj Bali, revisionist was not that of a trespasser. Suraj Bali himself has admitted that ho has no concern with Gaon Sabha land and in the trial court he did not claim any rights in the trees also. 4. The revisionist, Suraj Bali, has filed an objection against the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner. He has admitted that the amount of damages proposed to be imposed by the order of the teamed Addl. Commissioner is correct. However, he has objected to the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner as far as order regarding his ejectment from the land is concerned. He has objected against his ejectment on the ground that as his trees am standing on the land in suit and he is ejected from that land, he will not have any access to the fruits of the trees or to other enjoyment of the trees which obviously belonged to him. He has cited 1981 R.D. 15, 1978 R.D. 29 and 1976 R.D. 160. 5. In 1976 R.D. 160, it was held that 'the trees planted on Gaon Sabha land do not necessarily vest in the Gaon Sabha land on which the trees are standing'. In 1978 R.D. 29, it was held, relying on 1976 R.D. 160, that where the ownership of a person over trees would not be proper to eject that person from the trees or the area covered by the trees'. In 1978 R.D. 29, it was held, relying on 1976 R.D. 160, that where the ownership of a person over trees would not be proper to eject that person from the trees or the area covered by the trees'. In 1981 R.D. 15, there is a ruling of Shri K.P. Singh, learned Judge of the High Court, but it is on the point of Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act and not on the point canvassed by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 6. If a person is owner of trees, standing on Gaon Sabha land, it is clear that it will not vest in the Gaon Sabha and that he will have a right to those trees. If his rights as owner of the trees subsists, he cannot obviously be ordered to refrain from enjoying the fruits and other benefits of those trees. This is what was held in the rulings: 1976 R.D. 160 and 1978 R.D. 29. There can be no dispute regarding the principles evolved in those rulings, but the question here is whether by planting trees on Gaon Sabha land in the period of Ban Mahotsav the revisionist will be held to be the owner of those trees. The point is debatable. If persons imbued with the spirit of doing good to the society or to the country, do certain think like plantation of trees or flowers or construction of roads by voluntary labour ( Jenku) they cannot be allowed to claim ownership over those things afterwards. Persons, who plant trees or flowers on public property like Gaon Sabha land or Government land or important places like Rajghat, Shantivan, etc., will not be allowed to claim property rights on the trees or flowers planted by them. It public-spirited persons with the consent of the Gaon Sabha or of some other authority construct roads by Shramdan, they will not be allowed afterwards to claim private ownership of that toad because they had by their voluntary labour constructed that particular road. There is no evidence in this case that by giving the permission to the revisionist to plant trees on Gaon Sabha land, the Pradhan made any promise to him or granted any concession in his favour to the effect that by doing so he will become owner of the trees planted by him. There is no evidence in this case that by giving the permission to the revisionist to plant trees on Gaon Sabha land, the Pradhan made any promise to him or granted any concession in his favour to the effect that by doing so he will become owner of the trees planted by him. No law or authority has been cited before me that because of the fact that if a particular person or several persons, in a drive for doing public good, do certain things by their labour on public property, they will become owner of that thing or of the product of their labour. I think that the revisionist, Suraj Bali, did not acquire and he could not acquire any ownership rights in the trees planted by him on Gaon Sabha land with the permission of the Gaon Sabha Pradhan in the period when there was a drive for planting trees on public land and on road sides. 7. On the ground mentioned above, I am of the opinion that the revisionist. Suraj Bali, will not get any ownership rights in the trees (slanted by him on the Gaon Sabha land. Hence, the order of ejectment by against him is correct. 8. Agreeing with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, I dismiss die revision and uphold the order of the trail court so far as ejectment of the revisionist, Suraj Bali is concerned. I allow the revision partly in respect of damages and reduced the amount from Rs. 1,2881-Rs 26/- as recommended by the learned Additional Commissioner. The order of the trial court is modified accordingly.