RANJIT Vs. AUTHORISED CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts are that Plot No. 4 measuring 164 sq. yards situated in village Shudkain was auctioned on January 24, 1967, by Tehsildar, Sales, Kaithal, under the powers conferred under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Ranjit, petitioner gave bid for it, which was accepted by the Tehsildar. The sale was confirmed by the Settlement Officer (Sales) exercising the powers of Settlement Commissioner vide order dated February 15, 1967. Lakhi Ram filed an appeal to the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, who reversed the order of confirmation vide order dated May 19, 1967. The order of the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner has been impugned in this writ petition.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 33 of the Act. He further argues that as the alternative remedy has not been availed of, the writ petition abates by virtue of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. According to the counsel, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as having abated.

(3.) Mr. Puran Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the remedy provided under Section 33 of the Act is not an efficacious remedy within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and consequently the writ petition does not abate.