V. Gurumoorthy vs The State of Tamilnadu

S. Tamilvanan, J.—This Second Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree, dated 29.03.2000 made in A.S. No.540 of

1999 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 27.01.1998 made in O.S. No. 54 of 1996 on

the file of the District Munsif Court, Musiri.

Based on the pleadings, the following substantial question of law has been framed by this Court:

Without cancellation of the order of allotment in the manner known to law, can the defendants destroy the trees planted by the plaintiff on the

ground that some of the villagers objected to the land being allotted to the plaintiff.

It is an admitted case that the appellant herein was permitted in the river poramboke land in Sirinivasanallur, Musiri Taluk for planting saplings of

tamarind, mangoes and coconut trees, at his written request as a social service, without expecting any remuneration or other benefit under the

scheme.

According to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, as per the order dated 15.11.1993, the appellant was permitted to plant the trees

in the river poramboke land. However, without any legal notice, the respondents are attempted to trespass into the property.

Per contra, Mr. Herold Singh, learned Government Advocate (CS) submitted that the appellant was permitted only to plant the sapling of

certain trees as a service and charity, voluntarily without claiming any right whatsoever. As per order dated 15.11.1993, he was permitted to plant

the saplings and as such, he cannot claim any right and no legal right is available to the appellant/plaintiff in the suit and as such the suit is not legally

maintainable. Hence, on the ground the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the first appellate court. According to the

learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, there is no substantial question of law to be decided in the second appeal in favour

of the appellant.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to the order passed by the Assistant Engineer, Public Works

Department in Na.Ka. No. 1374/93 dated 15.11.1993, wherein, it is specifically stated that only on the basis of the undertaking given by the

appellant, he was permitted to plant saplings of trees as a social service and charity. In the written undertaking he has given assurance that he

would not claim any right in the trees. Only on the written undertaking he was permitted to plant saplings.

It is not in dispute that there are ten conditions stipulated in the order and having accepted the conditions the appellant/plaintiff did the work as a

voluntary service. As per the condition Nos. 7 to 10 of the order and the undertaking of the appellant/plaintiff he has specifically assured that he

has no right in the trees so grown. As per the written undertaking he cannot claim any leasehold right or damages from the respondents for the

trees. With the said undertaking given by the appellant/plaintiff, he was permitted to plant saplings in the Government poramboke land, which has

been classified only a fiver poramboke. From the document Ex.A2, it is clear that the appellant/plaintiff has no legal right to maintain the suit as held

by the Court below.

The plea of the appellant in the appeal is that the respondent without cancellation of the order of allotment are trying to destroy the trees, which

cannot be accepted as there is no prima facie material to show that the respondents namely, the Government and its Public Works Department are

taking any steps to destroyed the trees, belong to the Government. The appellant has not disputed the fact that only at his written request he was

permitted to plant saplings in the year 1993, as per the undertaking given by the appellant, he would not claim any right whatsoever in the trees and

therefore, cancellation of order dated 15.11.1993 does not arise.

Admittedly, the service or charity cannot be converted as a leasehold right or otherwise. It is seen that the appellant has no legal grievance to

maintain the suit. In view of the written undertaking given by the appellant he is estopped from claiming any right. Hence, I answer the substantial

question of law against the appellants claim and in favour of the respondents.

Hence, this Court is of the view that there is no error or infirmity in the concurrent findings of the courts below to be interfered with. Hence, the

appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, the appellant/plaintiff is at liberty to approach the concerned authorities for getting any relief, which is

available as per law.

With the above observations, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.