IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.710 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 19.05.2011 The Punjab Business and Supply Co. Pvt. Ltd. …..Appellant Versus Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary to Govt. Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Som Nath Saini, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against an order dated 24.1.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing CWP No.8978 of 1987, filed by the appellant. In that writ petition, the appellant had laid challenge to an order dated 6.6.1986, passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue, remanding the dispute to the competent officer, with a direction to look into the eligibility of the appellant to get the land transferred. As per facts on record, the appellant approached the department for transfer of 712 square yards of land falling in khasra Nos.3152 and 3153, situated in Rohtak, on a ground that it was a sitting tenant on the said land. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, vide an order dated 27.2.1976, ordered that price of the site be charged from the appellant along with price of the structure and rent. That order was assailed by the appellant. The LPA No.710 of 2011(O&M) matter was remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who, vide an order dated 19.4.1982, ordered allotment of land to the appellant @ Rs.100 per square yard. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- “3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Bhatnagar for Vaish Education Society and DDA for the State. 4. In this case it has to be determined as to whether the Punjab Business Supply co. is eligible for the transfer of the land measuring 712 sq. yards or it should be put to open auction. If the petitioner company is held to be eligible for the transfer of this land then on what price? 5. That Vaish Education Society stressed that as they had already purchased the adjoining area out of Kh. Nos.3152 and 3153 the land in dispute should be put to open auction so that they could purchased the same. The DDA of the State has also stressed the views advanced by the Vaish Education Society but he has also argued that in case it is found that the Business supply Company is eligible for the transfer of this land then it should be transferred at the current market price. On the other hand it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in dispute was leased out at the rate of Rs.10/- per month by Nawab Dujana in the year 1940 in favour of the company and Company had deposited lease money upto 31.3.1981. It has further been argued the learned counsel for the company that the land in question is still in possession of the company and this fact is also admitted by the Vaish Education Society as well as by this Department. My attention 2 LPA No.710 of 2011(O&M) has also been drawn to the report of Tehsildar (Sales) dated 16.5.75 in which it has categorically mentioned that the Company has raised substantial construction over this site for the last so many years. According to the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation vide No.17 (150/comp. Prop.67 dated 1.5.68; the urban properties can be sold to the sitting occupants by a negotiated sale at the current market price. It is a fact that the petitioner is a lessee of the land in dispute and his status is higher of the unauthorized occupants. In view of this position, we cannot deny the legitimate right of the petitioner for the transfer of the land in dispute.” It is necessary to note here that the allotment made in favour of the appellant was also challenged by respondent No.3. Against an order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, referred to above, respondent No.3 went in revision and the Financial Commissioner vide an order dated 6.6.1986, accepted it and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication to the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The appellant came in the writ petition which was dismissed vide the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has declined relief to the appellant by observing as under:- “Undisputedly, Tehsildar (Sales) fixed the price of the land at the rate of ` 131.25 per square yard. That price was fixed in the year 1976. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, while setting aside the said order and reducing the price to ` 100 per square yard has not recorded any valid reasons. Taking into account this fact and the fact that prices have gone up manifold, the Financial Commissioner set aside the said 3 LPA No.710 of 2011(O&M) order. In my opinion, while remanding the matter, the Financial Commissioner has rightly observed that the Chief Settlement Commissioner will take a fresh decision with regard to eligibility of the petitioner company as well as the price to be charged, as these issues are required to be gone into in detail. In my opinion, by the remand order, no serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner company. It is always open for it to argue before the Chief Settlement Commissioner regarding his eligibility as well as price of the land. The earlier order dated 27.2.1976, passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, does not say any thing regarding the eligibility of the petitioner company to get the land transferred in its name on payment of price. In light of that non-speaking order, the Financial Commissioner has rightly remanded the matter for fresh decision on the issue of eligibility of the petitioner company as well as price of the land. I do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner company that respondent No.3 society was having no locus standi. Under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons Act, the Financial Commissioner is the authority, who can pass the order exercising the powers of Central Government and respondent No.3 society is claiming that the disputed land is of higher value, therefore, it should be sold by public auction. Therefore, its locus to ask the department to sell the land in public auction can not be questioned. 4 LPA No.710 of 2011(O&M) Keeping in view all the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. However, it will be open for the petitioner company to argue before the Revenue Authorities regarding its eligibility with regard to transfer of the disputed land on the basis of the earlier order as well as with regard to price of the land. We feel that the order passed is perfectly justified. Only a remand order passed by the Financial Commissioner has been upheld by the learned Single Judge, by opining that the eligibility of the appellant to get the land transferred needs to be looked into by the competent authority. Counsel for the appellant has failed to show any illegality in the order passed. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 19.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 5