Divisional Forest Officer And ORS v. Dheeraj Singh
"#$ $%&'&()**+ , - * .//$00"(#' ,$1'2' .*$'/(3$(#
1"4) (560$ 1*2'#&%$**7"0&" 1$'$(#) 1*"#&'8&(90": :"1;"("* <<< **7"0&":*
1"0! =>
8"00$(9$ &( #8$ &('#"(# $920"1 $%(3 //$"0 &' # #8$ ?2394$(#"(33$%1$$/"''$36;#8$0$"1($3&'#1&%#239$:"42("("9"1"# "9"381&&( &@&0//$"0*+ A3"#$3**&(%"'$#�$3"' 8$$1"?&(98@'&@&'&("01$'#
&%$1"(3#8$1':"00B&(9#8$"//$"0 "(3 43& ;&(9 #8$ ?2394$(# "(3 3$%1$$ 3"#$3 **A /"''$3 6; #8$ 0$"1($3 &@&0239$ 1*&@*!26&@&'&(:&0"'/21&( &@&02&#* A* CAC#�$3"'8$$1"?&(98@'&@&'&("01$'#
&%$1$#%*8$"//$"0&'"%%4/"(&$3B"("//0&%"#&( 1%(3("#&( 3$0"; A3";'&(0"#$ &0&(9 #8$//$"0* => 0$ "1924$(# 0$"1($3 &' #8"# #8$ &4/29($3 ?2394$(# "(3 3$%1$$&'0$9"00;2('2'#"&("60$"'#8$#1$$'&(D2$'#&(B$1$/0"(#$36;#8$ 1$'#$/"1#4$(#( @$1(4$(#0"(3* =+> /$12'"0 #8$?2394$(# #8$0$"1($3 &@&0239$ 1*&@*!: 26&@&'&( &0"'/21 1$@$"0' #8"# ( #8$ /0$"3&(9' #8$ /"1#&$': #8$
00B&(9&''2$'B$1$ 1"4$3)
=>
!
" #
$ !
" %
" &
!
!
' %()**" + ,
8$1$"
#$1: ( #8$ 6"'&' $@&3$(%$ 0$3 6; #8$ /"1#&$' "(3 '264&''&('4"3$:&''2$*B"'/"1#0;3$%&3$3&( "@21 #8$1$'/(3$(# C/0"&(#&
:&''2$*B"'3$%&3$3"9"&('##8$1$'/(3$(#C/0"&(#&
B8&0$ &''2$'*+#B$1$3$%&3$3"9"&('##8$"//$00"(#'C3$ $(3"(#'6$&(9(# /1$''$3 "(3 #8$ '2&# &0$3 6; #8$ 1$'/(3$(#C/0"&(#&
1$9"13&(9 /$14"($(# &(?2(%#&(B"'/"1#0;3$%1$$3B8&0$#8$'2&# 14"(3"#1;&(?2(%#&(B"' 3&'4&''$36;803&(9#8"##8$1$'/(3$(#C/0"&(#&
B"'$(#�$3#E'8"1$ #8$'"0$/1%$$3' #8$#1$$'"##8$#&4$ #8$&1 $00&(9C%2##&(9* => 8$?2394$(#"(33$%1$$/"''$36;#8$0$"1($3 &@&0239$ 1*&@*!: 26&@&'&(&0"'/21B"'43& &$36;#8$0$"1($3&'#1&%#239$:"42(" "9"1 "# "9"38"1& &( &@&0 //$"0 *+ A @&3$ ?2394$(# "(3 3$%1$$3"#$3**6;1$0;&(9(#8$3$%&'&( #8&' 21#&(#8$
(#8$912(3#8"#$@$(& "/$1'(/0"(#'#1$$'(#8$0"(36$0(9&(9# "(#8$1:#8$#1$$'%4$#@$'#&(#8$0"(3B($1"(3%"((#6$1$4@$36;" /$1'(:6;B84#8$;B$1$/0"(#$3:"'#1$$'2/(#8$0"(3"1$/"1# &#"(3 #8$1&98##%2#3B("(3'$00#8'$#1$$':&'&(%&3$(#"0##8$/1/1&$#1'8&/ 1&98#' #8$ 0"(3 "(3 (# #8$1B&'$* $0$@"(# $F#1"%# #8$ "
1$'"&3 3$%&'&(&'1$/132%$3"'2(3$1)
=+> -
!
-
$
$! $ !
! ! $
-
$
$
.
!/
!
/ /
! $
$
!
!
$
!
$
- $
$
$
$
- $
! $
$
! !
!
- $ $ !
!
.
$
0 1
2 $
$ 3
.
!
$ /
$
$
$
$
'
! !
$
$ .
! !
$
$
=> [5] Learned lower appellate court in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of its judgment held that the notifications Ex. D1 & Ex. D2 issued on 06.07.1979 and 03.05.1958 respectively declaring Government Forest and Fallow Lands on both sides of the roads, canals, dams etc as protected forests for being managed by the Forest Department and the strips of Government forest and waste lands, whether under tree growth or not on either side of all roads, canals and railways in the State of Punjab, except those in the Patiala Division to be protected forests, could not be extended to the land of private owners and further that once the trees were held as belonging to the soil, the question as to who planted them became irrelevant, therefore, allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent plaintiff by reversing the finding of the learned trial Court,of the respondent / plaintiff being entitled to only fifty percent share in the sale proceeds of the trees at the time of felling in terms of letter No.186 dated 03.04.2000 issued by the Chairman, Forest Conservation, Haryana.
Resultantly, the Appellants / Defendants wererestrained from interfering in the ownership and possession of the respondent / plaintiff over the suit land and also from cutting and removing the trees standing on the land of the respondent / plaintiff.Despite query, learned AAG has not pointed out any evidence that the trees in question were planted on Government land.
[6] Apart from the above, the application for condonation of delay of 416 days in late filing of the appeal mentions of legal opinion having been sought qua the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.11.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar in Civil Appeal No.543 of 2016 in case titled as Dheeraj Singh vs Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Department, Yamuna Nagar and others as to whether thecase was fit for filing appeal or not and after receiving legal opinion, the competent
=> authority was requested to seek sanction from the Government to file the case on Government expense which was granted on 01.01.2018 and after receiving sanction, the appeal was drafted and filed. However, in the process, there was a delay of 416 days in filing the appeal. [7] A perusal of memo No.35/Co.31(220)2016 dated, Chandigarh 01.01.2018, issued by the Legal Remembrancer and Administrative Secretary to Govt. of Haryana to the DFO, Yamuna Nagar, mentions that there was no use in filing a regular second appeal before the High Court in view of the well settled position that trees belong to the soil and the question as to who had planted them was irrelevant. Relevant extract of said communication is reproduced hereunder :- "In this connection it is stated that it is well settled rule that the trees belong to the soil, the question as to who planted them become irrelevant, hence, observation in para No.21 is fair enough no use to go for RSA before the Hon'ble High Court.
However, if concerned department want to go for file RSA then send the sanction of Financial Commissioner concerned for filing RSA in view of under para 20.4 (C) of the LDM."
[8] A perusal of the said communication reveals that despite the aforementioned communication dated 01.01.2018 from the Legal Remembrancer and Administrative Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, the appeal was filed after a delay of 416 days for which no explanation whatsoever has been given except a bald statement that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor willful and the delay was occasioned due to exchange of correspondence between one office and movement of the
=A> file from one table to the other. In connection with the aforementioned stand, reference is made to Section 2(h) of the Limitation Act, 1963 as per which nothing is deemed to be done in good faith if the same is not done with due care and attention. Section 2(h) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is reproduced as under:- (h) "good faith"- nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention;
[9] Accordingly, in the absence of due care and attention having been observed while processing the case, the indifference negates good faith, more so, when the only explanation put forth is that the file was moving from one table to another table and from one office to another and that too without mentioning the details as to on which date the file was sent for what purpose and from which office to which office. It needs no mention here that the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights as is evident from the maxim, " Vigilantibus Non Dormentibus Jura Subvenient " The applicant has failed to substantiate existence of sufficient cause for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court to seek condonation of 416 days delay in late filing of the Regular Second Appeal. [10] Accordingly, finding no merit in the application seeking condonation of 416 days' delay in late filing of the appeal within the stipulated period of time, the same is dismissed. Resultantly, the Regular Second Appeal is also dismissed.
(B.S. Walia) Judge 24.01.2023 'Amit'
Whether speaking/ reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No