Allahabad High Court
Ram Pher Singh & Ors. vs Addl. Collector Gonda & Ors. on 26 November, 2013
Bench: Sibghat Ullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Judgment reserved on 07.11.2013.
Date of delivery of judgment 26.11.2013.
Court No. - 21
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 2060 of 1994
Petitioner :- Ram Pher Singh
Respondent :- Addl. Collector Gonda & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Q M Haq
Counsel for Respondent :- C S C,R N Gupta
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard Shri Q.M.Haq, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
The question involved in this writ petition is that if some one plants some saplings over Gaon Sabha land, and the same grow into tress, that person becomes owner of the trees or not?
Petitioner was found in illegal possession of Gaon Sabha land hence proceedings for his eviction under Section 122-B and 115 C of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, were initiated in the form of case no. 9/31/75/136/288 Gaon Sabha Vs. Ram Pehr Singh. Tehsildar Balrampur, District Gonda passed the order of eviction on 30.03.1993 and imposed the damages of Rs. 18,500/-. Against the said order petitioner filed Revision no. 19/55. A.D.M./ Additional Collector Gonda, dismissed the revision on 20.06.1994 hence this writ petition.
Matter relates to plot no. 536 and 534 total area 1.05 acre. It was also stated that the petitioner had cut four Shisham trees. Petitioner pleaded that he was in possession since the time of his ancestors and further contended that trees had been planted by his ancestors.
Even though before the courts below petitioner claimed possession over the land in dispute and sought to justify the same however during the arguments in this writ petition learned counsel for the petitioner categorically stated that he was confining petitioner's right to the trees only.
If some one unauthorizedly occupies the land of another person particularly of Gaon Sabha and plants saplings thereupon, neither he can have right over the land nor the trees. The sapling in order to grow into a tree requires two essential things one is sunlight and other is rain. Some one who plants a sapling over the land of another can not claim any right over sunlight and rain which falls over the said land and tree.
The ownership or right of the tree goes with the owner of the land or with the person who has got the right over the land, unless there is some contrary agreement or provision of law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a division authority of this Court reported in Aman Singh and others Vs. Shivdhari and others, 1966 R.D. 367. However, in the said case only validity of Rule 26A of the Rules framed under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was considered and it was specifically held in the said case that trees had been purchased by the petitioner from the owners thereof.
The other authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is reported in Tilakdhari Singh Vs. Durga Prasad Singh and others 1967, R.D. 268. In the said case it was held that if before enforcement of Zamindari abolition some one had planted trees around the pond he was owner of the trees as the said trees under Section 6 of U.P.Z.A. And L.R. Act did not vest in the State nor settled with the Zamindar. I have some reservation in following the principle of law laid down therein for the simple reason that even though U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act did not say any thing regarding such trees (planted on land which vested in the State on enforcement of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act) however, it did not settle such trees with their planters.
Moreover by virtue of Section 4 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act all estates vested in the State. Estate is defined under Section 3 (8) of the Act, according to which it means the area included under one entry in any of the registers described under Section 32 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Area obviously means land of the area and land includes the trees standing there upon. Section 6 merely provides consequence of the vesting regarding rights or interest of intermediaries i.e. Zamindars. Section 6 (a) (i) uses the words "including land." The land obviously includes the trees standing thereupon. More over trees are specifically mentioned in the said clause. The only exception is of the trees in village abadi holding or grove. Accordingly a tree which is not situate in village abadi holding or grove vests in the State.
In the aforesaid authority the general principle was not considered that if some one plants sapling which grows into tree over the land of another, the tree belongs to the person who has got right in land or who is in possession of the land and not to the one who has planted sapling. In the said authority it has not been discussed that in case the land over which claimant had planted tree did not belong to Zamindar then to whom it belonged. A tree can not exist in the air it has to be embedded in the earth.
In any case I am not pursuing this point further, for the simple reason that absolutely no evidence was led by the petitioner to show that he or his ancestors planted the saplings which grew into trees and that also prior to Zamindari Abolition.
Accordingly there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.11.2013
Deepak
