Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1517 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Tara Singh

2011-08-05

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2011
JUDGMENT MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. (oral) - The epitome of the facts, which requires to be noticed for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the present appeal and emanating from the record is, that Tara Singh and Bishamber Singh sons of Munshi Ram-respondent-plaintiffs(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit for permanent injunction, restraining the State of Punjab and its Divisional Forest Officer-appellant-defendants(for brevity “the defendants”) from cutting and removing the Eucalyptus trees standing in their land in dispute, situated in village Taragarh, Teshil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. 2. The case set-up by the plaintiffs, in brief, insofar as relevant was, that they are absolute owner and in exclusive possession of their land in question, in which, they have planted about 30 Eucalyptus trees towards the side of Ravi Dhussi Bandh. It was claimed that since, their land adjoins Ravi Dhussi Bandh, so, they moved an application to defendant No.2, for permission to cut and remove the trees. Instead of granting the permission, the defendants threatened to forcibly cut and remove the indicated trees standing in their land, without any legal right. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the plaintiffs that they are absolute owner, in actual possession and have planted about 30 Eucalyptus trees, but the defendants threatened to forcibly cut and remove the trees from their land, without any legal basis. They asked the defendants not to do so, but in vain, which necessitated them to file the present suit. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants, in the manner described hereinabove. 4. Faced with the situation, the defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, for want of notice under Section 80 CPC, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiffs. On merits, the defendants did not specifically deny the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the land in question. However, they vaguely pleaded that many trees are standing near “gair mumkin Dhussi Bandh”, which are under the management and control of the Forest Department of the defendants. On merits, the defendants did not specifically deny the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the land in question. However, they vaguely pleaded that many trees are standing near “gair mumkin Dhussi Bandh”, which are under the management and control of the Forest Department of the defendants. It was claimed that the defendants have planted the trees and the plaintiffs have no right or title to cut and remove the same on Ravi Dhussi Bandh. The area around Dhussi Bandh was stated to be declared as protected forest under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, having framed the essential issues, for proper adjudication of the case, by means of order dated 21.05.2004, the trial Court slated the case for evidence of the plaintiffs. 6. The parties to the lis, in order to substantiate their respective claims, produced on record oral as well as the documentary. 7. Taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 27.01.2006. 8. Aggrieved by the impugned decision of the trial Court, the defendants filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 11.02.2009. 9. The appellant-defendants still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present regular second appeal. 10. After hearing the learned State Counsel, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this context. 11. Ex facie, the argument of the learned State Counsel that since, the land in question of the plaintiffs, where the Eucalyptus trees are standing, adjoins Dhussi Bandh, which is under the management and control of the Forest Department and the plaintiffs have no right to cut and remove the indicated trees, so, the Courts below committed a legal mistake in decreeing their suit, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 12. 12. As is evident from the record that the plaintiffs, who are owner and in possession of the land in dispute, filed the suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from cutting and removing 30 Eucalyptus trees standing in their own land. The defendants did not specifically deny the ownership, possession of the plaintiffs and existence of Eucalyptus trees over the suit land. However, it was claimed that the trees are under their management and control. Although, the defendants did not deny, but in order to substantiate the ownership and possession, the plaintiffs produced oral as well as the documentary evidence i.e., Jamabandi(Ex.P-1) and Khasra Girdawari(Ex.P-2). Not only that, even the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs is admitted by DW1 Baldev Singh, Range Officer, wherein, he has stated that they have no connection with the land in dispute, which belongs to the plaintiffs. Likewise, DW2 Hakam Singh, Demarcation Officer, in his cross-examination, has also acknowledged that the suit land belongs to Tara Singh and the defendants have no link with the trees standing in their land in question. That means, the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land is duly proved on record, rather admitted by the defendants as well. 13. Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this appeal is, as to whether the trees are the part & parcel and attached to the land or not? 14. Having regard to the contention of the learned State Counsel, to me, the answer must obviously be in the affirmative, as the trees are part and parcel, attached to the land and its owner are entitled to reap the fruits in this respect. 15. As is clear that Section 4(i) of The Punjab Tenancy Act--(for short “the Act”) defines the land, means land which is not occupied as the site of any building in a town or village and is occupied or has been let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture, or for pasture, and includes the sites of buildings and other structures on such land. The words “has been let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture”, contained under Section 4(i) of the Act, carrys a significant meaning. The words “has been let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture”, contained under Section 4(i) of the Act, carrys a significant meaning. Similarly, the term agriculture is a wider import and in the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary, the trees include within its scope. It is a well-known maxim that whatever is affixed to the soil/land, becomes in contemplation of law a part of it and is subjected to the same rights of property as the soil/land itself. 16. Therefore, it follows as a corollary that even if a person plants a tree in the land of another, the owner of the land becomes owner also of the tree. To put it in a slightly different manner, standing trees belong not to the person by whom these were planted, but belong to the owner of the land, from which it draw its support and sustenance. The trees upon the land are part of it and the right to cut down and sell those trees, is incidental to the proprietorship rights of the land and not otherwise. Even if the timber/trees planted by any person/lessee/tenant on the land, still those would belong to landowner, on whose land these were planted and not to the planters of the trees. If the trees are standing in the land of the landowner, then it cannot possibly be saith that they have inferior ownership rights in the trees, but full proprietor rights in the land, in which, they have planted the trees. Therefore, the rights of the landowner in the trees standing in his land merge completely in his ownership rights of the land. Thus, it emerges that even if a person plants the trees on the land belonging to another, the trees come to vest in the landowner and cannot be removed by a person, by whom they were planted. 17. There is a strong logic behind it. Possibly, no one can dispute that Eucalyptus trees draw their energy from the fertile land, on which these are planted and adversely(deeply) affect its fertility. 17. There is a strong logic behind it. Possibly, no one can dispute that Eucalyptus trees draw their energy from the fertile land, on which these are planted and adversely(deeply) affect its fertility. It is not a matter of dispute, rather matter of common knowledge that with the passage of time, not only that, the quality of fertility of that very land, is decreased on which Eucalyptus trees are planted, but it also affects the growth/fertility of the adjoining land as well, culminating in the huge losses of crops, standing in it. Sometimes, the fertile land become somewhat barren on account of growing of Eucalyptus trees. In this manner, the landowner must be held entitled to be compensated in this relevant connection and is the legal owner of the trees standing in his land. 18. What is not disputed here is that, it stands proved on record that the Eucalyptus trees in question are standing in the land owned and possessed by the plaintiffs, as discussed hereinabove. In that eventuality, the defendants have got no right, title or interest to cut the Eucalyptus trees of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned State Counsel “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 19. Sequelly, there is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. The trial Court, after appreciating oral as well as the documentary evidence and admission of the defendants, recorded a finding of facts that the plaintiffs are owner and in possession of the disputed land, in which Eucalyptus trees are standing and the defendants have no right, title or interest in it. 20. Not only that, the decision of the trial Court was affirmed by the first Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 11.02.2009, which in substance is, as under:- “S. Baldev Singh, Range Officer has appeared as DW-1 and he has tendered his affidavit Ex.DW-1/A on the file. In his cross-examination, he stated that they have no connection with the land measuring 6 kanals 11 marlas which belongs to plaintiffs. He further stated in his cross-examination that they have no link with the land of Tara Singh. He further stated that Khasra Nos. of the land of Tara Singh are different. In his cross-examination, he stated that they have no connection with the land measuring 6 kanals 11 marlas which belongs to plaintiffs. He further stated in his cross-examination that they have no link with the land of Tara Singh. He further stated that Khasra Nos. of the land of Tara Singh are different. Hakam Singh, Demarcation supervisor has appeared as DW-2 and in his cross-examination, he stated that he has seen the suit land. He admitted the fact that the suit land belongs to Tara Singh. He further stated that they have no link in the trees standing in Khasra No.5R/1/1, 13/2, 14, 17/2, 18/1/2. So, from the above discussion it is proved on the file that suit land belongs to Tara Singh and Bishamber Singh plaintiffs and trees were planted by them in the suit land. Presumption of truth is attached to Jamabandi. Defendants/appellants have not produced any document on the file to show that they are in possession of the suit land. Even witnesses produced by defendants admitted that Tara Singh is owner in possession of the suit land. So, from these facts, it is proved on the file that Tara Singh and Bishamber Singh are owners and they have planted the trees in the suit land. No reliance can be placed on the notification Ex.D-3. That notification relates to waste land and Govt. Forest land. That notification has nothing to do with the land of the plaintiffs as the land of plaintiffs is not waste land.” 21. Learned State Counsel did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, any interference is warranted in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below. 22. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned State Counsel, to assail the findings of the Courts below. All the remaining contentions, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of the appellant-defendants, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below, in this relevant behalf. 23. Moreover, having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the Courts below have recorded the above indicated concurrent finding of facts. Such judgments, containing the valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under Section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. 23. Moreover, having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the Courts below have recorded the above indicated concurrent finding of facts. Such judgments, containing the valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under Section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned State Counsel, so as to take a contrary view, than that of the well-articulated decision arrived at by the Courts below, in this context. 24. Neither any question of law, much less substantial, is involved in this regular second appeal, nor any other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned State Counsel. 25. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. Appeal dismissed.