IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22599 of 2010 Date of Decision: January 18, 2011 Gurmail Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 31.8.2005 (Annexure P-12) and Order dated 17.8.2010 (Annexure P-19). 2. Vide impugned order, Annexure P-12, Sub Divisional Magistrate, while exercising powers of Collector, Balachaur, under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short, ‘the Act’), has found the petitioner to be in unauthorised occupation of the CWP No.22599 of 2010 [2] land that falls under control of Forest Department. Accordingly, eviction of the petitioner has been ordered. The petitioner carried an appeal that has been decided vide Order dated 17.8.2010 (Annexure P- 19) passed by the appellate authority under the Act. Order Annexure P-12 has been upheld. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions viz. that the Forest Department had no locus-standi to initiate proceedings under the Act for the reason that Forest Department is not the owner of the land. It has been pleaded that Rehabilitation Department is the owner of the land. 4. On the second count, it has been argued that since the petitioner is in occupation of the land, the land is required to be allotted to the petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Second argument of learned counsel would survive only if in the context of the first argument, it is found that land vests in the Rehabilitation Department which could possibly be allotted. So as to establish the first argument, learned counsel has relied on Annexure P-1 to say that the land belongs to Rehabilitation Department in Punjab Government. 7. On perusal of Annexure P-1, I find that it is neither a notification nor any document originating from a Government Department that would CWP No.22599 of 2010 [3] establish the fact, as pleaded. There is no diary number or name of the Department where it originates and therefore, no notice of Annexure P-1, in law, can be taken. 8. On reference to impugned order, Annexure P-12, it transpires that the authorities have come to the conclusion that the Forest Department is the owner of the land, on the basis of notification dated 29.10.1980 that establishes that the Government of Punjab declared the areas as forest land demarcated by boundary pillars whether under tree grown or not, and declared it as protected forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 9. On a query of the Court, learned counsel has placed on record notification dated 29.10.1980 published in Punjab Government Gazette dated 14.11.1980. The notification is taken on record as Annexure P-20. 10. Perusal of Annexure P-20, shows that the land, in regard to which the petitioner claims the right viz. falling in village Bachhan, Tehsil Balachaur, comprised in Killa No.22/1, 2, 3, 4 and 5/1, is included in the notification. It proves that the land vests in the Forest Department, Punjab. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any document that would establish that the land had been reverted back to the Rehabilitation Department to enable the petitioner to claim that land is not owned by the Forest Department. CWP No.22599 of 2010 [4] 12. In view of Annexure P-20, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate his argument to the effect that Forest Department could not have initiated proceedings under the Act. The finding recorded in Annexure P-19 to the effect that petitioner was not in possession of land and land vests in the Forest Department, Punjab, also calls for no interference. 13. Because I find the findings recorded in the impugned orders to be based on relevant material and evidence, the Forest Department being the owner of the land at issue, other argument(s) in regard to claim for allotment of land by Rehabilitation Department cannot possibly succeed. 14. In view of the above, the petition has no merit and is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) January 18, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?