L.P.A. No.1281 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.1281 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 22, 2011 District Red Cross Society, Jullundur …APPELLANT VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Appeal), Punjab,Chandigarh and others …RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- PRESENT: Mr. R.S. Sihota, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. J.R. Mittal, Sr.Advocate, with Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate, for the caveator. … SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. District Red Cross Society, Jalandhar has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 19.05.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.9627 of 1990) filed by respondent No.4-Kartar Chand, was allowed and the orders dated 11.2.1982, 1.9.1987 and 10.5.1990 passed by Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala and Financial Commissioner, Appeal, Punjab, Chandigarh, L.P.A. No.1281 of 2010 (O&M) -2- respectively, have been set aside. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Settlement Commissioner, before whom the appeal filed by respondent No.4 against the order dated 10.5.1980 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer(Sales)- cum-Managing Officer was pending, had rightly allowed the application filed by the appellant for impleading it as a party so that the appellant could have protected its interest against respondent No.4 before the Appellate Authority. According to the learned counsel, the said order was upheld by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala and Financial Commissioner, Appeal, Punjab, Chandigarh, but the learned Single Judge without any justification had set aside that order while wrongly coming to the conclusion that the appellant is not a necessary party and the authorities below have committed grave illegality while impleading it as a party when the appellant is the rank outsider. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Undisputedly, the Assistant Settlement Officer(Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Jalandhar vide order dated 10.6.1980 had decided to transfer Khasra No.19531/8585-88 (21 Kanals 10 Marlas) in favour of respondent No.4 being a displaced person as they were found in possession of the aforesaid land since Rabi 1958 as lessees or sub-lessees. Against the said order, Kartar Chand (respondent No.4) filed an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner regarding transfer of the remaining land for which his claim L.P.A. No.1281 of 2010 (O&M) -3- was not accepted. In that appeal, the appellant-Society filed an application for becoming the party on the plea that the land comprising in Khasra Nos.19532/8587-88 measuring 21 Kanals was decided to be sold to the appellant-Society by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, Jalandhar vide its order dated 1.9.1980 for a negotiated price of ` 35,664/-, therefore, they are interested party in the appeal filed by respondent No.4. Learned Single Judge while referring to the letter dated 1.9.1980, which has been annexed with this appeal as Annexure R-4/1, came to the conclusion that the said letter does not confer any right on the appellant and also does not negate the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer(Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, who was the competent authority under the Act, who had decided to transfer the land in favour of respondent No.4 vide order dated 10.6.1980. Therefore, the appellant was having no interest in the dispute pending in appeal before the Settlement Commissioner. In our opinion, in the appeal pending before the Settlement Commissioner, the issue was not with regard to transfer of urban evacuee agricultural land comprising in Khasra 19532/8587-88 measuring 21 Kanals, which was decided to be sold to the appellant-Society by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, Jalandhar. In the appeal, the dispute is with regard to transfer of the remaining land for which respondent No.4's claim was not accepted. Therefore, in the said appeal, the appellant was not at all a necessary party. Thus, the learned Single Judge, in our view, has rightly set aside the orders L.P.A. No.1281 of 2010 (O&M) -4- dated 11.2.1982, 1.9.1987 and 10.5.1990 passed by Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala and Financial Commissioner, Appeal, Punjab, Chandigarh, respectively. Secondly, the decision for allotting the land comprising in Khasra No.19531/8585-88 to respondent No.4 was prior in time, whereas the decision to allot the land comprising in Khasra Nos.19532/8587-88 measuring 21 Kanals in favour of the appellant- Society was subsequent. Therefore, in our opinion, the appellant-Society cannot become a party in that proceedings as they do not have any interest in the appeal in which respondent No.4 had sought relief only for the transfer of remaining land. Further, if the appellant-Society was aggrieved against the transfer of some land by Assistant Settlement Officer in favour of respondent No.4, it could have challenged that order separately by filing an appeal, but it cannot become a party on the plea that its right have been adversely affected in the pending proceedings . In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 22, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE