Paramjit Singh Patwalia, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 13.06.2003 (Annexure P -14) passed by Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Rehabilitation Department -respondent No. 1. This case has a chequered history of litigation and illustrates the consequences of entrusting judicial work to those who had no judicial training and background.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the grandfather of the petitioner was displaced person from Pakistan and was allotted land in Parti Taraf Insar, Panipat in lieu of the land abandoned in Pakistan. As per the averments in the writ petition, after the death of the grandfather of the petitioner, his father and thereafter, after his father's death, petitioner is in possession of the allotted land along with some other adjacent land to the allotted land. The said possession as per the revenue record is since 1952 -53. The khasra numbers 1656(4B -1B) and 1657(8B -1 IB) were unallotted evacuee agricultural land which was allegedly sold in open auction by the Rehabilitation Department according to the government policy. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition for the first time that Khasra No. 1657 (8B -1 IB) was sold in open auction at Panipat which was purchased by petitioner through his representative Darshan Singh being highest bidder for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/ -The said bid was accepted by the Settlement Officer (Sales) on 24.09.1970 and Rs. 3000/ -being 25% of the auction money was deposited. However, the said auction sale was set aside by the Tehsildar (Sales) vide order dated 28.10.1970 (Annexure P -1) holding that the highest bid is less than the reserve price of Rs. 17,688/ -and ordered the re -auction of the property by starting bid from Rs. 12,000/ -. In pursuance to that, it was again auctioned but bid did not exceeded Rs. 12000/ -and was accepted in favour of the petitioner through his representative. Ishar Singh and Khazan Singh filed objections that the land is not unallotted evacuee property, therefore, it cannot be put to auction. The objections were dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 19.01.1971 (Annexure P -2). Appeal and revision were preferred. Ultimately matter was sent to the Chief Settlement Commissioner by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue vide order dated 06.05.1998 with the following directions : a) To ascertain the authenticity of the two Sanad Taqseems produced before him pertaining to allotment of land in Chogati, District Jalandhar (Punjab). b) To procure and examine the old record pertaining to allotment of land at Panipat and to ascertain whether Gopal Singh and Sohan Singh were involved in the proceedings of allotment of land in Panipat and the delivery of possession, and the factual position as to how possession was given to the alleged mortgages. The Chief Settlement Commissioner sent a report dated 10.11.1998 to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. Thereafter, Commissioner and Secretary decided the revision petition of the petitioner vide order dated 21.08.2001 (Annexure P -3). Heirs of Sh. Darshan Singh filed a CWP No. 13158 of 1998 which was dismissed. Petitioner by way of CWP No. 15636 of 2001 challenged the latter part of the order dated 21.08.2001 (Annexure P -3) whereby it was directed that the possession from all the unauthorized occupants should be taken by the Govt. of Haryana immediately and the sale procedure to Sarabjeet Singh Purewal should be completed, after he vacates the land to the Govt. of Haryana of his unauthorized possession. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.09.2002 (Annexure P -4) set aside the latter part of order dated 21.08.2001 and directed to issue sale certificate. In the said writ petition, Review Application No. 22 of 2002 was filed by the State Government. In the said review application, the Division Bench passed order dated 28.02.2003 (Annexure P -5) in following terms : ...There does not appear to be any mistake in our order dated 16.09.2002 that may necessitate review. However, if a wrong finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Financial Commissioner with regard to Khasra No. 1657, it is always open to the State to make an application for review before the said authority. We are not issuing notice in this review application to the petitioner on the premise that if the order of Financial Commissioner is to be varied on the application filed by the State, surely, petitioner shall be issued notice by the learned Financial Commissioner. With the observations made above, this application is disposed of accordingly. After the order dated 28.02.2003, the State Government filed a review application before the Commissioner & Secretary which has been allowed vide impugned order 13.06.2003 (Annexure P -14). Hence, the instant writ petition.
(3.) NOTICE of motion was issued. Respondents filed their respective separate replies and the writ was admitted.;