Civil Writ Petition No.8465 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: April 30, 2009 Bachan Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Nawanshahar & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. N.P.S.Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G.Punjab, for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed at the instance of Forest Range Officer, Kathgarh, who filed an application under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 claiming that the petitioner was in illegal occupation of land bearing khasra Civil Writ Petition No.8465 of 2007 : 2 : Nos.101//6/1 (7-0), 15/2(7-0), 16/1 (7-0), total measuring 21 kanals. In the application, it was stated that this land has been declared as a protected forest and as such was in the ownership of the Forest Department. Notice was issued to the petitioner and he appeared and stated that he was in cultivating possession of the land in dispute and had made it cultivable by spending huge amount. The Forest Range Officer was cross-examined during the course of the proceedings where he conceded that paddy was found sown in the land, meaning thereby that the land was being cultivated. Sub-Divisional Magistrate allowed this application and ordered the eviction of the petitioner on 31.8.2005. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same before the Deputy Commissioner pleading that Forest Department was not able to prove its ownership of the land. According to the petitioner, Provincial Government was the owner and as such Forest Department had no locus or jurisdiction to file this application for ejectment. These pleas, as per the counsel, were not properly considered by the Deputy Commissioner while rejecting the appeal. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition. Before issuing notice of motion, the counsel for the petitioner was asked to place on record site plan depicted in the notification dated 16.8.1971 and documents in support of his entering possession, payment of rent, date of commencement of possession etc. Once the petitioner complied with these directions, notice of motion was issued and operation of the impugned order, Annexure P-2, was stayed. The reply on behalf of the State is filed and has Civil Writ Petition No.8465 of 2007 : 3 : supported the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Deputy Commissioner while rejecting the appeal had noticed the fact that respondents were not able to produce the notification issued by the Government declaring the land to be under ownership of the Forest Department. Before the Deputy Commissioner, copy of the notification dated 16.8.1971 was subsequently produced by the Forest Range Officer, Kathgarh. As per the averments made, the jamabandi made a mention to the land in question being owned by Provincial Government and in possession of the Forest Department. Deputy Commissioner noticed that the khasra numbers mentioned in the jamabandi tallied with those mentioned in the notification and from this the Deputy Commissioner concluded that the land has been declared as protected forest under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. He also did not accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that Forest Department did not have the locus to file this application and observed that there was no distinction between the Provincial Government and Forest Department. Counsel for the petitioner has made two-fold submission before me. He would first submit that the notification, copy of which is now on record as Annexure R-1, does not contain the khasra numbers of the land which is in possession of the petitioner. Accordingly, the finding given by the Deputy Commissioner that he had tallied the khasra numbers in the jamabandi and the notification to say that land in occupation of the petitioner, was protected forest is against the record. The counsel refers to Annexure P-5, which is a Civil Writ Petition No.8465 of 2007 : 4 : Memoranda, issued by Government of Punjab, Department of Revenue & Rehabilitation and makes reference to part of it where it is recorded that land which already stood transferred to Forest Department was to be disposed of in favour of Harijans and Rai Sikhs in those cases where mutation of the land in favour of the Forest Department is not entered and sanctioned and such land may be taken back. The submission is that the land, which is in the possession of the petitioner, has also not been mutated in the name of the Forest Department and as such this land can be taken back even if given to the Forest Department for possession for disposing it of in favour of Harijans and Rai Sikhs. The petitioner has referred to the notification to point out that the land in possession of the petitioner is not referred therein. Since the petitioner has based his challenge to the impugned order on the ground of misreading of documents and a fact which is apparent on record, which apparently has not invited proper consideration by the Deputy Commissioner, it would be appropriate to remand this case back to the Deputy Commissioner for re- consideration. In addition, the plea raised by the counsel for the petitioner that a land adjoining to the land of the petitioner was given to the occupants, who were in cultivating possession thereof in terms of the Memoranda, Annexure P-5, referred to above may also require consideration. The petitioner would be at liberty to establish so before the Deputy Commissioner for him to pass any appropriate order in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear Civil Writ Petition No.8465 of 2007 : 5 : before the Deputy Commissioner on 8.5.2009, who shall afford opportunity of hearing to the parties and decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh. April 30, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE