JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) 1. The Special Appeal is purported to be filed under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules, Allahabad which has been followed by this Court after the formation of the State of Uttarakhand and the creation of the High Court of Uttarakhand. 2. The writ petition from which the appeal arises was filed against the order (judgment) passed by the Divisional Forest Officer / Prescribed Authority, Haldwani, Forest Division, Haldwani, District Nainital under Section 61A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). The said Section is the amendment made by the Uttaranchal Legislature to the Act. It reads as follows:- “61A. Summary eviction of unauthorised occupants . – (1) If a Forest Officer, not below the rank of a Divisional Forest Officer, is of the opinion that any person is in unauthorised occupation of any land in areas constituted as a reserved or protected forest under Section 20 or Section 29, as the case may be, and that he should be evicted, the Forest Officer shall issue a notice in writing calling upon the person concerned to show cause, on or before such date as is specified in the notice, why an order of eviction should not be made. (2) If after considering the cause, if any, shown in pursuance of a notice under this section, the Forest Officer is satisfied that the said land is in unauthorised occupation, he may make an order of eviction for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the said land shall be vacated by such date, as may be specified in the order, by the person concerned, which shall not be less than ten days from the date of the order. (3) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction by the date specified in the order, the Forest Officer who made the order under sub-section (2) or any other Forest Officer, duly authorized by him in this behalf, may evict that person from and take possession of the said land and may, for this purpose, use such force as may be necessary. (4) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Forest Officer under sub-section (2) may, within such period and in such manner as may be prescribed, appeal against such order to the Conservator of Forests of the circle or to such officer as may be authorized by the State Government in this behalf and the order of the Forest Officer shall, subject to the decision in such appeal, be final.” 3. Against the order of the Divisional Forest Officer, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the 3rd respondent, who is the Appellate Authority /Conservator of Forest. The order passed by the 2nd respondent, i.e. Divisional Forest Officer, directing the eviction of the petitioner was affirmed by the third respondent. It is challenging these two orders that the writ petition was filed. 4. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has been allowed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that notice, as contemplated under Section 61A of the Act, was not shown to have been served on the writ petitioner and, therefore, the impugned ‘judgments’ were set aside. 5. We have heard Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Additional C.S.C. on behalf of the appellant. 6. Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules reads as under :- “5. Special appeal. - An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction [or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award—(a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one Judge.]” 7. A judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge where the writ petition is filed challenging the judgment, order or award of a Tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or Concurrent List is not appealable under Rule 5. Equally, a judgment of a learned Single Judge rendered in a writ petition where order impugned is of any officer or Authority made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate jurisdiction or revisional jurisdiction under such Act is also not appealable. 8. In this case, orders (judgments) which were impugned in the writ petition (writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution) have been passed under the Act. It is purported to be passed under Section 61A of the Act which is an amendment brought by the Legislature of Uttaranchal. Entry 17-A of List 3 of the Constitution, which is the concurrent list, provides for forest. Therefore, the law dealing with Forest, namely, Indian Forest Act, though, made by Parliament, it relates to a matter which falls in the Concurrent list. Moreover, Section 61-A of the Act is inserted, and under which the impugned orders have been passed, has also been inserted by the State Legislature. 9. In such circumstances, it is a case where the impugned orders have been passed under the Legislation which pertains to a Central Act; but, it relates to a matter falling in the Concurrent List. 10. Even otherwise, as far as the appellate order passed by the 3rd respondent is concerned, it clearly would fall in Clause (b) as the order of the original authority would merge in the appellate order. If there would be merger of the order of the original authority in the order of the appellate authority, the order which would remain to be challenged is the order passed by the appellate authority and the appellate authority (even if not a Tribunal) can be subjected only to the jurisdiction of the Single Judge as far as this Court is concerned having regard to the terms of Clause (b) of the last part of Rule 5 of High Court Rules. Therefore, the present appeal appears in our view to be clearly not maintainable. 11. Therefore, the present appeal appears in our view to be clearly not maintainable. 11. The appeal is dismissed for the reason that the appeal is not maintainable.