CWP No.9627 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9627 of 1990 Date of decision: 19.5.2010 Kartar Chand ............Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Appeal, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.C. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is assailing orders dated CWP No.9627 of 1990 -2- 11.2.1982 (Annexure P-3), 1.9.1987 (Annexure P-4) and 10.5.1990 (Annexure P-6) passed by Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala and Financial Commissioner, Appeal, Punjab, Chandigarh respectively. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that Asstt. Settlement Officer (S)-cum-Managing Officer, Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, Jullundur, vide order dated 10.6.1980 decided to alienate agricultural evacuee property bearing Khasra Nos.8574, 19531 and 8585-88, in favour of the petitioner; since entire property sought to be allotted in favour of the petitioner was not ordered vide order dated 10.6.1980, petitioner herein preferred an Appeal No.499/80/SO in the Court of Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur; meanwhile, Deputy Secretary, Government of Punjab, vide order dated 1.9.1980 directed to alienate the property in favour of respondent No.4; after issuance of letter dated 1.9.1980 by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Punjab, respondent No.4 moved an application in the appeal seeking impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. saying State of Punjab has decided to transfer the property in favour of respondent No.4 herein for Rs.35,664/- and entire sale consideration has been deposited by respondent No.4; Appellate Authority vide impugned order (Annexure P-3) dated 11.2.1982 allowed the application moved by respondent No.4 directing impleadment of respondent No.4; order dated 11.2.1982 was challenged before the Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala, who too agreed with the appellate CWP No.9627 of 1990 -3- authority and directed impleadment of respondent No.4; order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was challenged before the Financial Commissioner, Appeal, Punjab, Chandigarh; Financial Commissioner, Appeal, Punjab vide order dated 10.5.1990 dismissed the petition filed by the present petitioner by observing that respondent No.4 is a necessary party; order of the Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala and Financial Commissioner, Appeal, Punjab (Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-6 respectively) are under challenge in the present petition. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. For seeking impleadment in any pending litigation, applicant has to prove that he has interest in the lis and his valuable rights are involved in the lis or without his presence lis can not be decided effectively. To prove the interest in the lis, respondent No.4 is banking upon the order dated 1.9.1987 passed by the Deputy Secretary Govt. of Punjab, thereby, directing to alienate the property in dispute in favour of respondent No.4. 5. Undisputedly, Asstt. Settlement Officer (S)-cum-Managing Officer, Jullundur by exercising power under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, decided to transfer the land bearing Khasra Nos.8574, 19531 and 8585-88, in favour of the petitioner. Since transfer was ordered in favour of the petitioner for part of the property sought to be transferred, petitioner preferred an CWP No.9627 of 1990 -4- appeal before the Settlement Commissioner seeking transfer of entire land. Undisputedly, during the pendency of the appeal, Deputy Secretary, Government of Punjab vide order dated 1.9.1980 (Annexure R4/I) ordered to transfer the disputed land in favour of respondent No.4. 6. Now it has to be seen, as to whether letter dated 1.9.1980 creates any right in favour of respondent No.4 justifying the impleadment in the pending appeal filed by the petitioner herein seeking transfer of the entire land instead of part of the land as ordered by the Asstt. Settlement Officer. I have no hesitation to hold that under the Act only Asstt. Settlement Officer-cum-Managing Officer has jurisdiction to alienate/transfer/allot the agricultural evacuee land. Once a competent officer (Asstt. Settlement Officer (S)-cum-Managing Officer had already directed to transfer the land vide order dated 10.6.1980. State Govt. or its Secretary has no jurisdiction to transfer the evacuee agriculture land under the Act. Direction issued by Deputy Secretary vide order dated 1.9.1990 is without jurisdiction. No interest or right can be acquired by the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 1.9.1980. 7. In view of the above discussion, I find that respondent No.4 has absolutely no interest in the property and lis. Its rights can not be adversely affected in the pending proceeding. Keeping in mind the principles of Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., respondent No.4 can not be said to be a necessary party or the proper party and he is the rank outsider. In view of this, orders impugned herein can not be CWP No.9627 of 1990 -5- sustained. 8. Hence, the petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 11.2.1982 (Annexure P-3), 1.9.1987 (Annexure P-4) and 10.5.1990 (Annexure P-6) are hereby quashed. 9. Learned Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal preferably within six months in accordance with law. ( ALOK SINGH ) 19th May, 2010 JUDGE ashish