JUDGMENT

K. N. SAIKIA, J.:— Special leave granted.

2. This appeal is from the Judgment and Order dated August 24, 1988 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appellants writ petition for quashing the order of the Financial Commissioner Punjab dated 9-2-1988 declaring the second respondent to be eligible for allotment of the lands in dispute under Rule 34C of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) framed under the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The land in dispute (hereinafter referred to as the land) bearing Khasra Nos. 17/8/1, 8/2 and 8/4 admeasuring 7 Kanals 4 Marlas in the Revenue Estate of Shahzada Nangal, Gurdaspur, was owned by one Vinod Kumar. The second respondent claimed to have been in its cultivating possession in the years 1953-54, 1956-57. In 1957-58 and 1958-59 he was recorded as a sub-lessee under one Budha Singh lessee on annual rent of Rs. 100/-. In 1958 the lease in favour of Budha Singh was cancelled with information ti him by the Rehabilitation Department whereupon the second respondents right as sub-lessee came to an end. Consequently the second respondent was no longer recorded as lessee or sub-lessee after 1958-59.

4. In 1961 the second respondent applied to the Settlement Authority for allotment Of the land under R. 34C of the rules claiming as a sub-lessee. His application was rejected by the Managing Officer vide his Order dated 25-11-1962 and the second respondent having not filed any appeal or revision therefrom the order became final and binding on him.

5. The Rehabilitation Authorities having decided to dispose of the land an open auction was conducted on 11-8-1967 and the appellant, a retired army Subedar and also a displaced person from West Pakistan, offered the highest bid of Rs. 9,500/ - (Rupees nine thousand five hundred) which was accepted. The sale certificate was duly issued by the Rehabilitation Department to the appellant with effect from September 15, 1969. Without resorting to any appeal against the aforesaid Order dated 25-11-1962 refusing allotment of the land, the respondent made a second attempt for allotment under R. 34C of the rules by making another application which too was rejected by the Settlement Officer by order dated July 24, 1969 wherefrom the second respondent moved a revision application before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who remanded the case by Order dated July 29, 1970 to the Managing Officer for fresh decision but the latter rejected that application also on 22-3-1973. The second respondents appeal therefrom to the Settlement Commissioner was also rejected by Order dated 13-5-1973 as the second respondent could not prove his continuous cultivating possession as a sub-lessee under Budha Singh from 1-1-1956 till termination of the latters lease.

6. The second respondent thereafter instituted a suit on August 22, 1973 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gurdaspur against Budha Singh for declaration of his continuous possession of the land. However, neither the appellant who purchased the land in auction nor the Rehabilitation Department which cancelled Budha Singhs lease was impleaded. Budha Singh having supported the case, a decree declaring the second respondent to have been in continuous possession was passed.

7. The second respondent this time filed a revision from the appellate order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 13-5-1973 before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who by his Order dated 5-11-1976 remanded the case to the Managing Officer. for fresh decision. The Managing Officer vide his order dated 6-1-1978 this time allotted the land to the second respondent under R. 34C of the rules. The appellants appeal therefrom to the Settlement Commissioner was dismissed vide order dated 6-6-1978 but his revision therefrom was allowed and the allotment order in favour of second respondent was quashed by the Chief Settle