1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 17th February, 1999 allowing the writ petition filed by Mani Ram S/o Sheokaran the son of original allottee of land in question and setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.2 permitting the present appellants to deposit amount of installments due against the allotment of land in question along with interest and other rates chargeable thereon in terms of the High Court order.

3. The facts of the case are that Sheokaran, the father of Mani Ram, was allotted 50 Bighas of land in question way back on 16.2.1963. The said Sheokaran parted with the possession of the land in question on 25.6.1973 under an agreement to sale in favour of Harbans Singh, Manjit Kaur and Nasib Kaur, who subsequently transferred the land in question in the first instance on 1.8.1975 by executing an agreement to sale in favour of Gurmeet Singh, Gurbachan Singh and Dalbir Singh sons of Tulsi Ram, who in their turn transferred the aforesaid land in two parts of 25 Bigha each to appellant Brij Lal S/o Sheopat Ram Jat and Shravan Kumar S/o Ghadsi Ram Jat on 26.6.1992.

4. These transferees realised that some where between the period the installment due had not been paid, therefore, they moved an application before the Collector in the first instance for getting Khatedari rights. The said Brij Lal and Shravan Kumar made their applications which were pending before the Collector. Brij Lal and Shravan Kumar also moved a joint application for accepting the payment of the installment due with interest for the first time on 31.10.1994, Mani Ram filed an objection against the acceptance of amount from said Brij Lal and Shravan Kumar for conferment of Khatedari rights as they have committed default in payment of installments in due time.

5. During this period some litigations were pending before this Court about the power of the respondent to charge current market price for regularising the allotments, who had defaulted in making payment of installments in due time. This litigation was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court on 23rd February, 1994 holding that current market price is not chargeable from the allottees, but they are liable to pay the interest on amount of the default made by them. The application remained pending with the Collector.

6. Since the matters were pending with the Collector for allowing them the Khatedari rights, without deciding the same, the present appellants approached the Revenue Minister for intervening in the matter. The respondent petitioner had also participated in the proceedings before the Revenue Minister and in the first instance before the Minister he had raised an objection that alleged transfer of land by his father Sheokaran on 25th June, 1973 to Harbans Singh, Manjit Kaur and Nasib Kaur was only a mortgage and not the sale. However, the possession was not with said Mani Ram is not in dispute. An interim order was passed by the Revenue Minister in favour of the present appellants on 27.6.1994.

7. Said Mani Ram S/o Sheokaran respondent in this appeal and petitioner, preferred S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 189/1995 challenging the proceedings pending before the Revenue Minister inter alia on the ground that the respondent No.2, the Revenue Minister, has no power to interfere with the matter as the matter is relating to the allotment of land as well as in regard to possession of the land. If the respondents No.5 & 6 want to enforce the agreement to sale executed in their favour, they should have filed a suit in the proper court under the Tenancy Act or they should have filed the suit under the Specific Relief Act. In fact he has asked for quashing of the entire proceedings pending before the Revenue Minister as they are being continued without jurisdiction. However, subsequent to filing of the petition, the petitioner unconditionally withdrew the writ petition on 19.10.1995 and it was dismissed as withd