LEELA DUTT AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF H P AND OTHERS

The plaintiffs'' suit for recovery of 5,50,000/- constituting the price of trees illegally cut by the defendants stood dismissed by the learned trial Court whereupon the plaintiffs standing aggrieved are hence constrained to through the Regular First Appeal assail it herebefore.

The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are owners of the land comprised in Khasra No. 5,6,9,11,83,99, 126, 146, 269, 220, 277, 278, 298 in which some pine trees were standing. They moved an application for demarcation of their land and the marking of the trees for the purpose of their felling and selling to the defendants. It is alleged that 98 pine trees were marked in their land for the purpose of felling. Hammer mark was put on these trees. All these trees were felled. A complaint regarding such demarcation and felling was made by someone to the Chief Minister upon which an investigation was conducted. The investigation revealed that 98 pine trees were marked with hammer and were actually felled, but in fact permission for felling of 18 trees only had been given. The plaintiff alleged that defendants hatched a conspiracy to cause damage to them.

As per written statement filed by defendants No. 1 and 2, the factum of the felling of 98 trees from the land of the plaintiffs has not been denied. Their case is that permission for felling of 18 trees only was granted but the plaintiffs in connivance with the officials of the Forest Corporation defendant No. 3 also felled the disputed 80 trees. The employees of the Forest Corporation are facing trial for this illegal act. The defendants No. 1 and 2 denied their liability to pay any price of the trees, illegally felled. On the other had defendant No.3 stated that permission to fell only 18 trees were given.

On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damage, as alleged? OPP.

Whether suit is barred by limitation, as alleged? OPD 1,2,3.

Whether the plaintiffs cut the Chil trees illegally in collusion with the defendant No.3, as alleged. OPD 1 & 2.

Whether plaintiffs have indulged in unlawful activities to seal timber of 80 chil trees by using unfair means in violation of H.P.Forest Act, as alleged? OPD 1 & 2.

Whether defendants No. 1 and 2 have discharged the statutory duties, as per law, as alleged, if so its effect? OPD 1 & 2.

Whether present suit is not properly verified as per provision of law, as alleged? OPD-3.

Whether present suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 3.

Whether suit is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule (d) of the CPC, as alleged? OPD-3.

Whether no cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs, as alleged? OPD 1 to 3.

Relief.

On an appraisal of evidence adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

Now the plaintiffs/appellants instituted the instant Regular First Appeal before this Court, assailing the findings, recorded by the learned trial Court.

98 trees purportedly standing on the land owned by the plaintiffs, stood felled. However, only 18 trees stood hammered. The plaintiffs espoused qua the unhammered trees numbering 80 standing illegally felled by the official(s) of the defendants'' concerned whereas price only qua 18 trees standing defrayed to them by the defendants concerned. A circumspect reading of the plaint unveils qua the plaintiff(s) echoing therein qua 98 trees purportedly growing over the lands standing hammer marked. However, the best documentary evidence in consonance therewith stood comprised in adduction into evidence of the relevant sanction order holding reflections qua 98 trees purportedly growing upon the lands of the plaintiffs, standing hammered. Nonetheless the aforesaid best evidence remained unadduced. Consequently, for lack of adduction of best evidence qua 98 trees purportedly growing upon the lands of the plaintiffs standing hammered also theirs thereupon standing felled by the official(s) concerned of the defendant concerned hence incapacitates the plaintiffs to claim the price of 80 pine trees purportedly growing upon their lands.

Dehors the above, the plaintiffs stand entitled to recover the amount claimed in the suit hence only from the official(s) concerned of the relevant department of Government of Himachal Pradesh who despite not holding the relevant sanction for felling 98 trees proceeded to fell the aforesaid number of pine trees purportedly growing upon the land of the plaintiffs. Since pine trees numbering 98 purportedly growing upon the land of the plaintiffs stood felled by the official(s) concerned of the relevant department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh also when the felling of 80 trees by the official(s) concerned of the relevant department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh ensued from theirs not holding the apposite sanction, rendered the official(s) concerned to not attract any vicarious pecuniary liability qua the department concerned whereunder they rendered employment conspicuously when their act of felling trees beyond the number sanctioned by the competent authority concerned, was in its entirety an illicit act, rendering them alone liable to pay damages. However, neither the official(s) concerned of the relevant department of the Government stand arrayed as party(s) to the suit nor their names with specificity stands pronounced in the respective depositions of the plaintiffs'' witnesses. Consequently, the suit as constituted against the defendants is mis-constituted.

Moreover, the evidence on record as alluded to by the learned trial Court graphically unearths qua the felling of unhammered pine tress purportedly growing on the land of the plaintiffs standing sequelled by consent standing purveyed by the plaintiffs to the official(s) concerned of the defendant No.3 thereupon for reiteration price thereof was claimable by the plaintiffs only from the official(s) concerned, obviously it was un-indemnifiable qua the plaintiffs by the defendants hereat.

Accordingly, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the impugned judgement and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, is upheld. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.