NARENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 24.09.2018 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana, whereby, petition filed under the provisions of Haryana Evacuee Properties (Management & Disposal) Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as '2008 Act') for setting aside the order dated 31.12.2002 passed by Tehsildar (Sales), Ambala for transfer of evacuee land comprised in Khasra No.78//25/3 (5-8) and 23 (8-0) measuring 13 kanal 08 marla situated at village Pilkhani, Tehsil and District Ambala and order dated 10.02.2003 passed by the Settlement Officer (Sales), whereby, said transfer order was approved and also to set aside the order dated 25.04.2003 passed by the Settlement Officer (Sales), Ambala and order dated 07.09.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Ambala, whereby, the revision petitions were dismissed.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana, dated 24.09.2018 (Annexure P-13) cannot sustain in the light of the fact that as per the statute and the rules governing the allotment in favour of the petitioners, they were bona fide transferee as per Haryana Government policy and therefore, their rights are protected as there is no fraud or misstatement made on their part. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon Section 6 of 2008 Act. He contends that the powers having not been exercised by the Competent Authority i.e. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana, the orders which have been passed by the authorities, which were the subject matter of consideration before the Financial Commissioner in the impugned order, cannot sustain. He, however, could not dispute the fact that initially, restricted auction for the land in question was held where the private respondents in the writ petition were successful but vide order dated 05.12.1983, the said restricted auction was set aside by the Settlement Officer (Sales) in the light of the fact that the private respondents failed to deposit the amount for which the auction was held. This action was challenged by the private respondents by filing Civil Writ Petition No.3941 of 1985, which was ultimately allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.10.2011. He, however, states that since the petitioners had no role to play so far as the earlier proceedings are concerned nor were they in any manner involved in the said proceedings, the order which has been passed in favour of the private respondents by this Court, cannot be an impediment as far as the claim of the petitioners is concerned. He, thus, contends that the impugned orders passed by the authorities below cannot sustain.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance have gone through the impugned orders but do not find myself in agreement with the arguments raised by him rather tend to agree with the the reasoning which has been assigned by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana, while passing the order dated 24.09.2018 (Annexure P-13).