MAHA SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing order of respondent No. 3 alloting the land in question to respondents 4 and 5 and confirmed by respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) The petitioner claims that he has been in possession of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 6, 15, 16, 24/2 and 25 in village Kalyana, Tehsil Dadri since 1947 as a lessee and that he applied to Tehsildar (Sale), Bhiwani, respondent No. 3 to transfer the land to him at the reserved price according to rules. Respondent No. 3 without passing any order on the application of the petitioner, allotted the land to respondents 4 and 5 by his order dated 7.7.1966. Thereafter, these petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Sales) who dismissed the appeal on 29.12.1966. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who dismissed the revision by his order dated 2.4.1974. Thereafter, the petitioner approached respondent No. 1 who by his order dated 29.10.1980 dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. Then, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to quash the orders of respondents 1 to 3 and to direct respondents 1 to 3, to transfer the land to him.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, he is a displaced person and that the property is urban agricultural land and, therefore, under rule 34(c) of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, the petitioner is entitled to the allotment of land in question, while it is argued by the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana that the petitioner is not a displaced person and that the property is not situated in an urban area and, therefore, Rule 34(c) of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation), Rules, 1955, the petitioner is entitled to the allotment of land in question, while it is argued by the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana that the petitioner is not a displaced person and that the property is not situated in an urban area and, therefore, Rule 34(c) of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation), Rules, 1955 is not applicable to the facts of the case.