ORDER 1. This appeal has been tiled against order dated 30.05.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division. 2. Facts in brief are that the respondent filed a petition in the Court of Collector, Jagadhri against the appellant under Section 4, 5 and 7 of Haryana Public Premises Eviction Act pertaining to the land bearing Khasra No.106//28 m easuring 18 Kanals 17 Marlas situated in village Chhachhrauli, Revenue Estate No.311 that the Government is owner of the said land and every year the said land is given on Chakota to the highest bidder. The land was auctioned in favour of the appellant at the rate of Rs.670/- for the year 1988-89 and for the year 1990-91 it was auctioned in favour of Balbir Kumar son of Shanti Kumar and Subhash Chand son of Shri Bhagwan Dass as per highest chatoka but due to stay over the land in dispute the possession over the land remained with the appellant. This case was adjourned sine die vide orders dated 29.8.2003 passed by the Collector, Jagadhri. Thereafter again the case was fixed on the application of the appellant dated 19.1.2004. The Collector decided the application vide his order dated 4.7.2006 directing the appellant to deposit Rs.2,10,000/- within a period of two months along with Rs.10,800/- chakota amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 31.1.2002 till the date of deposit of the amount by the appellant. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the SDO (Civil)­cum-Collector, Jagadhri has rightly ordered in favour of the appellant to deposit the requisite amount of Chakota and has also rightly allowed the appellant to deposit the market price of the land in question, The learned Commissioner, Ambala Division has wrongly and illegally accepted the appeal of the respondent by passing a non-speaking order. 4. On the other hand, ADA appearing for the State has contended that the land in dispute is Nazul land which is owned by the State Govt. as per revenue record as in the Jamabandi for the year 1963-64,1965-66,1970-71 the Government has been entered as owner of the said land. Further, the appellant is not entitled to take possession of Nazul land as the same can only be transferred to a member of Scheduled Caste as per Nazul Land (Transfer Rules), 1956. as per revenue record as in the Jamabandi for the year 1963-64,1965-66,1970-71 the Government has been entered as owner of the said land. Further, the appellant is not entitled to take possession of Nazul land as the same can only be transferred to a member of Scheduled Caste as per Nazul Land (Transfer Rules), 1956. The, learned Collector ought to have passed ejectment orders against the appellant instead of awarding of giving amount of Rs.2,10,000/- to the appellant. Even learned Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhri has treated possession of the appellant as a tres passer and his ejectment cannot be effected by way of without due course of law. 5. After hearing both the parties and going through the record carefully, I am of the view that in this case the Collector has gone beyond his jurisdiction by conferring ownership rights in a summary case of eviction under Public Premises Act. If the petitioner is eligible for allotment, he should seek the remedy under the appropriate provisions of law/circular or notification issued by the State Government. The petitioner had taken this land on lease for one year in 1989 and has been continuing unauthorized on the land. Under these circumstances, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders which may warrant interference in the matter. The revision petition is dismissed. ———————