Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

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-IIl-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 :-

" Subsequently it seems that old Khasra Numbers were probably changed into with some new Khasra Numbers at that time of consolidation. However, details of these Khasra Numbers is very much available in the copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1983-84. For example Khasra Numbers 1032, 1033, 1035 and 1036, all find mention in the copy of jamabandi for the year 1983-84 and these Khasra Numbers are very much part of the Punjab Government Notification dated 16.08.1971. Similar is the case of Khasra Numbers 1019, 1020, 1022 and 1023. These Khasra Numbers are also part of the Punjab Government Notification dated 16.08.1971. It clearly means that these Khasra Numbers have already been notified by the President of India as Protected Forest and it is, therefore, wrong to conclude that the land does not belong to the Forest Department."

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 evi- dent from his order itself as reproduced below :-

"The case was earlier presented in the court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nawanshahar by the appellants but the same was not decided by the A.D.C. As it was required to be decided by the undersigned as Chief Sales Commissioner."

3. Hence, the averment of the counsel for the appellant is factually incorrect.

4. 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 Deal 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.

5. The admitted facts remain that the Forest Department had earlier filed an application under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of Punjab Public Premises and Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1973 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate exercising the powers of Collector under the Public Premises Act, Balachaur. However, the said case was withdrawn by the department on the basis of a statement dated 25.02.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner, herein, has not been able to point out as to how the said land is not a forest lan