KARTAR CHAND Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, APPEAL, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is assailing orders dated 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 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.