SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of a bunch of 19 writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 11484, 11612, 11632, 11661, 11707, 12955, 13087, 16963, 16989, 16959, 16975, 14885, 12559, 12560, 12561, 12563, 12565, 12566 and 12568 of 2012, seeking quashing of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala while exercising powers of Commissioner under the Public Premises Act. It appears, Divisional Forest Officer invoked the provisions of Public Premises Act seeking eviction of the petitioners from the land in question on the ground that said land was forest land. Application was allowed by the Collector, Sub Division Samana on 21.4.2005. Appeal was preferred before the appellate authority at Patiala who vide order dated 27.3.2006 remanded the case to Collector for decision afresh and to ascertain which Government Department was competent to initiate proceedings for eviction of alleged illegal occupants. Collector was also directed to examine whether land was covered by policy issued by the Government for allotment of land to unauthorized occupants. Collector decided the matter against the Forest Department but directed that possession be handed over to revenue department. State of Punjab through Divisional Forest Officer impugned the order passed by the Collector before Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. Said authority allowed the appeals holding that the land in question was forest land in view of Notification dated 24.6.1958. Thus, illegal occupants needed to be evicted from the same. Aggrieved, present writ petitions have been filed before this court.

(2.) At the outset, Mr. Sarjit Singh, learned senior counsel referred to the order passed by this court while issuing notice of motion. According to him, land in question being 2/3 Kilometers away from Bhakhra Canal, could not be said to be forest land. He submitted that prima facie view of this court was that matter may have to be remitted to the Deputy Commissioner to decide if the land was covered by the notification in question.

(3.) On the other hand, Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the plea. According to him, land in dispute is part of total land measuring 1400 Kanals 15 Marlas, situated in village Naiwala, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala and the same is in ownership of Government of Punjab through Department of Forest. Earlier said land was owned by the Canal Department but vide Notification No. 3059-F.T.-58/1949 dated 24.6.1958, Government of Punjab transferred the same to the Forest Department. Same was now protected land in view of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. According to him, petitioners have nothing to do with the land and are in illegal possession. He also referred to Jamabandi Annexure R-1 in support of his contention. Referring to judgment of the apex court annexed as Annexures R-4 to R-6, he submitted that forest land can only be used for the purpose of forest.