Planting trees on government land does not confer title or support permanent injunction.

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction concerning portions of Khasra Nos. 350 and 368 situated at Village Mahora, which were recorded as unoccupied Government land in the revenue records.

He claimed that his forefathers had developed the plateau/mountainous land, planted fruit-bearing trees, and continuously cared for them.

The plaintiff alleged that the Gram Panchayat interfered with his right to harvest the fruits and commenced construction on the land during the pendency of revenue proceedings.

The State denied that the trees had been planted by the plaintiff’s ancestors and maintained that the land was Government property.

The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his right to harvest the fruits or entitlement to an injunction.

The first appellate court affirmed the decree, leading to the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

1. Whether the plaintiff established any legal right to harvest fruits from the trees standing on the Government land comprised in Khasra No. 350.

2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, particularly the Gram Panchayat, from undertaking construction or other activities on the suit land.

3. Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below gave rise to any substantial question of law warranting admission of the second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

The Court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which a second appeal is maintainable only when the case involves a substantial question of law; formulation of such a question is a condition precedent for admission.

The Court relied on Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314, and Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through LRs v. Saraswati, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273, for this principle.

The Court further affirmed the general rule that mere planting or maintenance of trees on Government land, without proof of title, lawful permission, or another recognised legal right, does not create ownership or an enforceable right to seek a declaration of title or injunction.

The plaintiff relied primarily on the alleged acts of his forefathers in planting and maintaining fruit trees.

However, the trial court found no evidence establishing that the land belonged to the plaintiff’s ancestors or that the competent authority had granted permission for plantation on the Government land.

The High Court held that the plaintiff’s asserted long-standing care of the trees did not confer title or any legally enforceable interest in the land.

Since the revenue records described the property as Government land and the plaintiff did not base his claim on adverse possession or prove any independent legal entitlement, the injunction claim also failed.

The concurrent findings were based on appreciation of evidence and were neither perverse nor contrary to law.

Consequently, no substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 100 CPC.

It held that the plaintiff had neither proved title to the suit land nor established a legal right to harvest fruits from the trees or restrain the Gram Panchayat from carrying out construction or other activities on the Government land.

Finding no substantial question of law, the Court dismissed the second appeal as meritless and disposed of any pending interlocutory applications.