The forest land is a renewable natural resource and public property vested in the Government, and the constitutional duty to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country.

1. In this regular second appeal, plaintiffs-private persons and defendants-government are asserting their right, title and interest in and over the Shahpur Kandi forests which is an important gift of nature and is a natural resource in the shape of green blanket which not only produces innumerable material goods, but also provides environmental services which are essential for life. Birth and growth of human civilization and culture is very intimately connected with forests. Intimacy with forests has always been a refreshing and invigorating for human life. Materialism, greed and over exploitation of forests have created a disharmony and imbalance in our ecology and environment. This evil is being intensely realized now. Human consumerism has created such a great pressure on the forests that these have almost disappeared in many areas resulting in soil erosion, floods and barrenness, pollution, climatic changes, drought and destruction of the fragile eco-system. The civil suit out of which this second appeal arises is a classic case of greed of the plaintiffs to usurp the natural resources. The destruction of forests at the hands of either party is bound to have serious repercussions on the lives of the residents of the area. Mahatma Gandhiji said "Nature has enough for everybody's needs but not for everybody's greed".

2. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.1984 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Pathankot whereby suit for permanent injunction filed by respondents/plaintiffs has been decreed and against the judgment and decree dated 04.04.1985 passed by learned District Judge, Gurdaspur whereby appeal preferred by appellants-defendants has also been dismissed.

3. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the suit.

4. The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from cutting any tree or from removing cut wood lying in the land measuring 4486 kanals 19 marlas, (approximately 561 acres) as detailed in the head-note of plaint, situated in village Tikka Dhung, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. It was pleaded that the land in dispute has been recorded as 'shamilat tikka hasab rasad khewat' in the revenue record and is owned and possessed by the proprietors of the village. Plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land, being co-sharers. Defendants have no right, title or interest in the land in dispute. There are several trees standing in the suit land and some of the trees are lying cut in the land. Defendants want to remove the logs of wood and cut the trees standing in the disputed land.

5. Defendants resisted the suit and filed written statement. It was pleaded that property in dispute was under the management and control of Forest Department since times immemorial. The Government has become owner of the land which was shown as land of proprietary body under the provisions of the forest laws. The land in question had been declared demarcated and undemarcated protected forests vide Notifications No. 3 and 4 dated 05.01.1904. Plaintiffs have no right in the land in dispute. It was also pleaded that suit was not maintainable in the present form and had become in-fructuous as the standing trees had already been auctioned to Badri Nath Kama, contractor, that plaintiffs had remedies under the Indian Forest Act and the same were not availed of by them. The suit was barred by limitation and not triable by the civil court. The suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that suit was liable to be dismissed for want of notice under Section 80 CPC.

6. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Court of first instance framed following issues:

"1. Whether the land in dispute is owned and possessed by