- (1.) This is a writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issuance of the writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, respondent No. 1, dated Aug. 5, 1974, Annexure P.5.
(2.) Shiv Gir, deceased, father of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, owned land in West Pakistan in lieu of which, he was allotted 10.10 standard acres of land I village Ferozepore Araian, Tahsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, some time, in 1954 as a displaced person by the Rehabilitation authorities Subsequent thereto, the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer Rehabilitation Jullundur, by his order dated Apr. 10, 1961, Annexure P. 1, cancelled the allotment to the extent of 7.12 1/2 standard acres on the ground that the land of the allottee in West Pakistan was under Mortgage with a Muslim and he did not deposit the mortgage amount in spite of notice. That order was challenged by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as sons and legal representative of the allottee, in appeal, before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner who set aside the order, Annexrue P. 1, by his order dated June 21, 1961 and remanded the case with the direction that the allottees will deposit the mortgage amount and will put in appearance before the Managing Officer on July 5, 1961. As the legal representatives of the original allottee did not comply with the order nor did they put in appearance in spite of the issuance of a number of notices, the Managing Officer, by his order dated Aug, 26, 1961 upheld his previous order Annexure P. 1 No appeal was filed against the same for a considerable time. Appeal was, however, filed after about seven years which was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated July, 10, 1968(Annexure P. 3), holding the appeal to be hopeless time-barred Revision against the same was also dismissed by the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-chief Settlement Commissioner, Harayana, vide order dated December 5, 1969, (AnnexureP3). The matter was still further agitated under S. 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954(hereinafter called the Act). The Commissioner Revenue, and Secretary Rehabilitation, Haryana, exercising the powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act, allowed the petition by his order dated July 30, 1971(Annexure P-4) and the original allotment regarding 10.10 standard acres of land was restored, and the order regarding cancellation of the part of the allotment was set aside. It was also held that under S. 8A of the Act, non-payment of mortgage money could not be made the basis for cancellation of the allotment and the mortgage amount could be realised as arrears of land revenue.
(3.) The petitioners (except petitioner No. 1) challenged this order in a writ petition, vide Civil Writ Petitioner No. 3036 of 1971, which was admitted. Simultaneously, an application was also filed for setting aside the order, Annexure P. 4 on the ground of its being an ex parte order. As the application was allowed, on May 24, 1973, and the ex parte order (annexure P/ 4), was set aside, the writ petition was also dismissed as infractuous. Meanwhile, after cancellation f a part of the allotted area, auction had been held of the area so retrieved from the original allottee, by the Rehabilitation Department on June 19, 1963, which was purchased by Bishan Dass and Charanjeet Lal, petitioners. Thereafter, this auction was confirmed ad possession of the land in dispute, was given to them. Even, the entire sale price had been paid by them. The Financial Commissioner. Revenue, respondent No. 1, in exercise of the powers of the Central Government, under S. 33 of the Act, by his order dated Aug 5, 1974 (Annexure P. 5), set aside the order of the Managing Officer Canceling partly the allotment in favour of Shiv Gir vide order Annexure P.1 and also the order dated Dec 5, 1969, (Annexure P. 3) of the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation- cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, and restored the entire allotment in favou of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The legality and correctness of this order has been challenged in the present writ petition.;