KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT -Kuldeep Singh, through his father Harbans Singh filed a petition for allotment of the land, in dispute, which was turned down by the respondents. The land, in dispute, is a Protected Forest as per Punjab Government Notification No. 860-Ft-III-71/1654 dated 16-08-1971. A copy of the said notification has also been placed on record as R-1 along with the reply of the respondents with the writ petition. The forest land cannot be diverted for non-forest purpose without the prior approval of the Central Government. While deciding the appeal, the Deputy Commissioner, Nawanshahr, vide his order dated 31-12-2006 (Annexure P-12) has held in the concluding para of the judgment as under :-

(2.) THE appellant, herein, has however, challenged the said order of the Deputy Commissioner as well as of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction, in as much as, the appeal was to be filed before the Chief Commissioner, Sales and not before the Deputy Commissioner. On specific query, learned counsel for the appellant admitted that the Deputy Commissioner had passed the orders, exercising the powers of the Commissioner, Nawanshahar and was also not in a position to tell as to which other authority, besides the Deputy Commissioner was exercising the powers of the Chief Sales Commissioner, Nawanshahar. In fact, the said order is duly decided by the Deputy Commissioner as Chief Sales Commissioner which is evident from his order itself as reproduced below :-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has raised yet another argument that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Commissioner had no power to decide the appeal under the Punjab Public Premises and Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1973 because in the present case, appeal lies under the Punjab Package Deals Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. This argument is also not available to the counsel for the appellant on account of what has been held above. Once, it is held that the Deputy Commissioner had decided the appeal as Chief Sales Commissioner, the said authority is competent only under the Punjab Package Deals Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. It is obvious that the appeal, in fact, is decided under this Act. The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed without even verifying the proper facts.