JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.: - Petitioner claims that she purchased land in question vide saledeeds, Annexures P1 to P5. Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 is annexure P6. On 05.02.2002, demarcation was done by revenue authorities in presence of officials of Forest department. Copy of report in this regard is annexure P- 6A. Petitioner, thereafter, constructed a marriage palace as per site plan duly approved by Senior Town Planner. Petitioner has also referred to photographs, Annexure P7 to P12 to show location of the marriage palace. Forest department filed a civil suit seeking injunction to restrain the defendants therein from making any encroachment/construction over forest land. The suit was, however, dismissed vide judgment dated 11.02.2011, Annexure P-13. Forest department initiated proceedings before Collector, Patiala claiming ownership of land measuring 14 biswas (as described in para 5 of the petition). This petition was allowed by Collector vide order, Annexure P15. Aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority. However, same was dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2011. Petitioner has preferred instant writ petition impugning orders dated 27.05.2011 and 13.12.2011. According to petitioner, land in question was purchased by her vide different sale-deeds as referred to in para 2 of the petition. Thereafter, demarcation was done by revenue authorities in presence of forest officials. Thus, forest department has no right/title on the land in question. Besides, construction was raised on the site after approval from Senior Town Planner. In view of same, petitioner cannot be said to be in unauthorized possession of the property. Orders passed by both the authorities are unsustainable. 2. Reply has been filed by way of affidavit of S.K. Sagar, Divisional Forest Officer, Patiala. It has been submitted therein that petitioner took undue advantage of the fact that her land also falls in khasra no. 975, thus she encroached upon the land of forest department measuring 14 biswas. Thereafter, construction was raised thereon. It is clear stand of the forest department that land comprising in khasra no. 2417/975 has been encroached upon by the petitioner. According to it, petitioner has tried to mislead the court by pleading that she was owner of entire khasra no. 975 whereas she had purchased only 12 biswas. From the perusal of document Annexure R/5 and other mutation entries, Annexure R-6, it would be clear that no other part of khasra no. 975 had been purchased by the petitioner. According to it, petitioner has tried to mislead the court by pleading that she was owner of entire khasra no. 975 whereas she had purchased only 12 biswas. From the perusal of document Annexure R/5 and other mutation entries, Annexure R-6, it would be clear that no other part of khasra no. 975 had been purchased by the petitioner. Ownership of Forest department would be clear from perusal of jamabandi for the year 2009-2010, Annexure R-7. Vide notification no. 3059-F.T.- 58/1951 dated 24.6.1958 issued by Government of Punjab, land in question had been transferred from Irrigation department to Forest department (Annexure R-8). In view of provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 said land was protected land. According to stand of the Forest department, authorities have rightly directed her eviction from the land in question. As regards demarcation report dated 05.02.2002, Forest department has taken the stand that same stands superseded by subsequent demarcation report dated 06.10.2012, (Annexure R-1). It has relied upon various judgments of the apex court to contend that land belonging to Forest department cannot be used for any other purpose without prior permission of Central Government. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. 4. Petitioner has referred to certain sale-deeds and demarcation report to contend that she was legitimately entitled to retain possession thereof. However, Forest department has produced revenue entries as well as demarcation report dated 06.10.2012 to contend that petitioner had amalgamated land belonging to Forest department with her own land to raise a marriage palace thereon. Perusal of various documents filed alongwith affidavit of Divisional Forest Officer leave little room for doubt that land comprised in Khasra no. 2417/975 was not purchased by petitioner. She has no right/title to same. On a petition being filed by department seeking eviction of petitioner under Punjab Public Premises and Land (Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1973, Collector allowed the plea observing as follows:- “After hearing arguments of learned counsels, perusing the evidence and record received on the filie, I have reached at this conclusion that as per Jamabandi for the 2004-05, this land is the ownership of Provisional Govt. This land has been declared as protected forest vide Punjab Govt.’s Notification No. 3059- F.T. 58/1949 Dated 24.06.1958. This land has been declared as protected forest vide Punjab Govt.’s Notification No. 3059- F.T. 58/1949 Dated 24.06.1958. No land of forest department can be used for other works as per Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and Orders Dated 12-12-1996, 4-3-97 and 29-10-2002 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Respondents have taken possession of this land by constructing marriage palace by raising boundary wall. Respondents are in unauthorized possession of this land. This land has never been given to them on Chakota or lease. No Hon’ble Court has stayed from evicting the respondents from this land in due process of law. The petitioner wants to get its possession by removing unauthorized possession of the respondents from the land in dispute by due process of law for which it has a right. The respondent has not produced any evidence in support of her claim. Hence, petition is accepted. The respondent is ordered to hand over its possession to Forest Divisional Officer, Patiala, District Patiala within one month after removing unauthorized possession from the land in dispute. Order pronounced. File be consigned to Record Room Patiala after due compliance. “ 5. Findings of Collector were affirmed by appellate authority. It found that appellant was in unauthorized possession of Government/Forest land. She had failed to produce any evidence to show that she had any right/title to said land. I find no ground to differ with the findings arrived at by the authorities. They afforded sufficient opportunity to petitioner to produce evidence to show that she was in possession of land either as owner or lessee. Having failed to do so, they directed her eviction. Various demarcation reports placed on record only prove the case of Forest department. During the pendency of this petition, various applications have been moved to prove that petitioner had purchased land comprised in khasra no. 975 and adjoining khasra nos. from various land owners in the year 2000-2001, consequent to which, her name was entered in jamabandi for the year 2004-05. As a result, petitioner had raised a marriage palace on the land after due approval from Senior Town Planner. This court, however, does not find any necessity to opine on the documents produced before this court during the pendency of this petition. Petitioner cannot augment/add to the pleas already raised before the quasi judicial authorities under the Public Premises Act. As a result, petitioner had raised a marriage palace on the land after due approval from Senior Town Planner. This court, however, does not find any necessity to opine on the documents produced before this court during the pendency of this petition. Petitioner cannot augment/add to the pleas already raised before the quasi judicial authorities under the Public Premises Act. She availed sufficient opportunity before the authorities below to rebut the case of Forest department. After examining the material brought on record, authorities under the Act came to the conclusion that petitioner needed to be evicted from the land/premises in question. A perusal of directives given by apex court in judgments R-9 to R-11 have to be followed in letter and spirit. Apex court has directed that land belonging to Forest department cannot be used for any other purposes without prior permission of Central Government. There is, thus, no question of raising a marriage palace on such land. Petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. 6. Before parting with this judgment, this court feels it necessary to express its concern about misuse of forest land by vested interests for various commercial purposes. This unauthorized activity needs to be effectively stopped keeping in view statutory provisions and directives of the apex court. Chief Secretary, State of Punjab may look into the matter and do the needful. He may also look into the issue of sanction of building plan by Senior Town Planner, Patiala and other authorities enabling the petitioner to raise a marriage palace on the land in question. Possibility that some other marriage palaces have also come by encroaching upon Government/Forest land cannot be ruled out. If so, such illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. This issue may also be examined by Chief Secretary, Punjab. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————