Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SOHAN LAL & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sohan Lal & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors - CR-492-1997 [2006] RD-P&H 2485 (21 April 2006)

C.R. No.492 of 1997 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYAN AT CHANDIGRH

Civil Revision No. 492 of 1997

Date of decision: April 19,2006

Sohan Lal and others V. State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
Present: Shri Adarsh Jain,Advocate, for the petitioners.

Shri Ashok Jindal,Additional Advocate General,Haryana for the respondents.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral)

On a request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, at the out set, the present petition is treated to be a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The decree holders are the petitioners before this court. A decree dated February 26,1991 was passed by the learned trial court qua possession of the suit land. The execution of the aforesaid decree was sought by the decree holders. The defendant-judgment debtors( State of Haryana and District Forest Officer) claimed that they were entitled to cut and remove the trees standing on the land in question. The executing Court vide order dated August 13,1996 had accepted the plea of the judgment debtors and has held that the judgment debtors can remove the trees from the suit land. It had also been found by the executing court that the trees in question were sown by the defendant-judgment debtors.

Shri Adarsh Jain,learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff- decree holders has referred to para 6 of the judgment dated February 26,1991. My pointed attention has been drawn to the following portion of the judgment:

" As per report of field Kanungo Ex.PW3/A C.R. No.492 of 1997 2

possession of Forest department was fund over kila No.124/2/8 and kila No.124/9/1.Local Commissioner himself has examined in the court as PW-3 Harish Chand and proved his report Ex.PW3/. From the entire documentary evidence and report of local commissioner Ex.PW3/A it has been proved that plaintiffs are owners in possession over land in dispute whereas some portion of kila No.124/2 and eastern portion of kila No.124/B and entire khasra No.124/9/1 has been encroached upon by defendants No.2 and plaintiffs are entitled to take possession over the suit land along with the trees standing on the portion encroached upon by the defendant." On the strength of the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned trial court, learned counsel has argued that the trial court had specifically held that the plaintiffs are entitled to have possession of the suit land alongwith the trees standing on the portion encroached by the defendant.

On the other hand, Shri Ashok Jindal,learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the relief clause of the judgment dated February 26,1991 shows that the suit of the plaintiffs had been merely decreed for possession and,therefore, the plaintiffs could not be heard to claim the ownership /possession of the trees. Shri Jindal has also pointed out to the findings recorded by the executing court to the effect that out of 300 tress standing on the land in question about 200 trees had been cut and removed.

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the present revision petition is liable to be allowed. The findings recorded by the trial court in para 6 of its judgment, as noticed above, clearly show that the plaintiffs have been held to be entitled to possession of the suit land along with the trees standing on the portion encroached by the respondents. In these circumstances, the mere omission in the relief clause of the judgment to mention the aforesaid fact would not change the relief which had been granted to the plaintiff-decree holders by the trial court.

C.R. No.492 of 1997 3

Consequently the present revision petition is allowed and it is directed that the plaintiff-decree holders would be entitled to seek possession of the suit land along with trees standing thereupon. However, it is directed that the plaintiffs shall not be entitled to claim any amount/compensation for the trees which had already been cut and removed.

The present revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

April 19,2006 (Viney Mittal )

sks Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.