CWP No.15268 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.15268 of 2008 Date of Decision: 15.7.2010 Amarjit Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. H.S. Diwana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab, for respondents no.1 to 5. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 31.10.2007 and 16.4.2008, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, (exercising the powers of the Collector) and the Deputy Commissioner,Rupnagar (exercising the powers of the Commissioner) directing his ejectment under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). The Forest Department of the State of Punjab filed an application under Section 4 of the Act for eviction of Dial Singh (father of the petitioner and respondent no.6) on the plea that he is in unauthorised occupation of forest land. The application was dismissed in default on 21.3.2005, but was subsequently restored and the petitioner and respondent CWP No.15268 of 2008 2 no.6 were brought on record as the legal representatives of Dial Singh. After framing issues and granting an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, the Collector ordered the ejectment of the petitioner and respondent no.6. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner and respondent no.6 filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 16.4.2008. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in dispute does not belong to the Forest Department. The land was transferred, by the Rehabilitation Department, to the Forest Department in the year 1971, but this transfer was subsequently withdrawn/cancelled pursuant to a cabinet decision and earmarked, for allotment to Scheduled Caste occupants of the land. The petitioner and respondent no.6, therefore, cannot be ejected. The petition for ejectment filed on 20.1.2005 is barred by limitation and should have been rejected summarily. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that though it is correct that land transferred to the Forest Department was withdrawn but the land in dispute was not part of the order withdrawing land from the Forest Department. The petitioner and respondent no.6 have no right to urge that the land should be allotted to them. It is argued that the petitioner is a rank trespasser, who seeks to appropriate forest land. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The Collector and the Commissioner have recorded concurrent finding that the land in dispute belongs to the Forest Department. It would be necessary to emphasise that this land was transferred by the Rehabilitation Department to the Forest Department on 7.10.1971. A sale deed was executed by the Rehabilitation Department in favour of the Forest CWP No.15268 of 2008 3 Department. Vide letter dated 4.10.1973, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, addressed a letter to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, on the basis of a decision taken by the Cabinet, to distribute 26570 acres of evacuee land, transferred to the Forest Department, to eligible members of the scheduled castes for planting trees and for utilisation of any left over land for cultivation. The Chief Conservator of Forests forwarded a letter dated 12.2.1975, setting out the forest land that is under intensive cultivation, in various districts of Punjab including, District Ropar. The land in dispute is situated in District Ropar. The entry with respect to District Ropar discloses that out of 3282 acres 5 kanals and 13 marlas, originally purchased by the Forest Department, 931 acres 7 kanals and 12 marlas, were under intensive cultivation. The Department of Revenue and Rehabilitation thereafter addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Ropar, to implement the decision of the Government for transfer of this land to scheduled castes etc. The petitioner would have succeeded in taking benefit of this decision and the letters issued by the Rehabilitation Department,but for the fact that they have failed to establish whether before the Collector, the Commissioner or before this court, that the land in dispute was retrieved from the Forest Department for distribution amongst scheduled caste. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be allowed to claim that the land should be allotted. It would be necessary to emphasise that on account of the ever decreasing forest cover, land transferred to the Forest Department for aforestation, should not be used for any other purpose. The Revenue and the Forest Department would be well advised to ensure that forest land is not diverted to any other use. CWP No.15268 of 2008 4 The argument that the petition for ejectment was barred by limitation, cannot be accepted, as the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of forest land and, therefore, cannot be heard to urge that his possession should be protected on the plea of limitation. In view of what has been stated herein above, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 15.7.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE