LPA No. 815 of 1994 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 815 of 1994 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.03.2010 Financial Commissioner and another ....Appellants. Versus Joginder Singh ....Respondent. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate for the respondent. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. In the present appeal, order impugned is dated 7.8.2009 passed by learned Single Judge whereby dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was directed by the Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation Department vide order dated 21.4.1971 to deposit the price according to rules for transfer of land measuring 15 Marlas out of Khasra No.5446. He filed an appeal LPA No. 815 of 1994 2 against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed on 17.8.1971 by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab. Revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was also dismissed vide order dated 16.11.1971. The orders dated 12.4.1971 and 17.8.1971 were set aside by the delegate of the Central Government vide order dated 2.8.1980. Aggrieved by the order passed by delegate of the Central Government, writ petition was filed, which was allowed by learned Single Judge whereby order dated 2.8.1980 was set aside. Order dated 2.8.1980 has been impugned in the present appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. The learned single Judge has held as under: - “order of these settlement Commissioner and the Chief settlement Commissioner dated April 21, 1971 and August 17, 1971 respectively have merged in the order passed by delegate of the Central government under Section 33 of the Act of November 16, 1971, and the officer of coordinating rank purportedly exercising the powers of the Central government under Section 33 of the Act could not set aside the order of his officer exercising the powers of the Central government under Section 33 of the Act. The delegate of the Central government in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Act had affirmed these orders when he dismissed the revision petition in limine and it was not open to the delegate purportedly exercising the powers of the Central government under Section 33 of the Act to set aside the orders of the settlement Commissioner and the LPA No. 815 of 1994 3 Chief settlement Commissioner, which had already been merged in the order of the authority exercising the powers of the Central government under Section 33 of the Act. The order under challenge cannot be sustained on the simple ground alone.” 5. On being asked, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality or perversity in the order passed by learned Single Judge. 6. In view of the above finding, we do not find any reason to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is devoid of merits and hence is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 05.03.2010 sk.