Mr. Amit Rawal, J.: (Oral) - Grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is to the order (Annexure P-12) dated 01.10.2013.

2. Mr. R.B.S. Chahal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Sardar Sunder Singh and his brother S. Roda Singh prior to the year 1947 were landlords in District Bahawalpur (now in Pakistan). Owing to partition, they became displaced persons as per provisions of Sub Section b of Section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation), Act, 1954. The petitioners are successors-in-interest of aforementioned persons. The aforementioned persons held two sets of property one urban and another agricultural. Their claims were settled and they were found eligible for rehabilitation of two sets of land i.e. agriculture and urban. Vide Annexure P-1 dated 17.07.1961, evacuee property, evaluated at the rate of Rs. 9358/-, was allotted. Resultantly, conveyance deed dated 04.06.1965 (Annexure P-2) was executed but the possession was not delivered. The petitioners ran from pillar to post for seeking vindication of the grievance. In 1995, they made representation to Deputy Commissioner Ferozepur. However, in the year 1997, vide Annexure P-7, the petitioners were allotted urban land measuring 31 kanals 4 marlas. Possession of the same was also handed over to them vide Annexure P-8. However, one Boshworth Smith Recreation Club, Fazilka, District Ferozepur instead of availing civil remedy under the civil law, filed revision petition, against the order of allotment before the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab, Chandigarh, invoking provisions of Section 15(1) and 5 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. The FCR Appeals-I accepted the revision and held that allotment could not be made in favour of the petitioners. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 18.12.1998, which reads thus:-

“The impugned orders state that the land in dispute is shown to be under the ownership of the Central Government in the Revenue Records, and was leased out to the petitioner society by the municipal committee in 1931 for a period of 30+30 years which has since expired. Prima facie, it is not package deal property as defined in Section 2 (1-A) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. Senior State Counsel is unable to assert categorically that the land in dispute is package deal property. Accordingly, all proceedings by the lower Revenue Officers in respect of the land purporting to have been taken under the provisions of the ibid are hereby quashed.”

3. The aforementioned order was challenged by the petitioners vide case No.9/FZR/2009-CC, but the same vide order dated 23.07.2010 was also rejected. However, the matter was taken up by Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh in Miscellaneous Revision No.41 of 2010 and vide order dated 29.05.2012, FCR accepted the same and set aside the order dated 23.07.2010 (Annexure P-10) and Tehsildar-Cum- Claims Officer, Fazilka was directed to take necessary action for allotment of the land to the Successor-in-interest.

4. He further submits that aforementioned order had attained finality but the order (Annexure P-12) dated 01.10.2013 primarily based upon the letter dated 08.01.1988 (Annexure P-13) whereby it has been held that petitioner cannot be granted urban land but has been ordered to be given the land measuring 31 kanals 4 marlas in the agriculture sector (i.e. agricultural land).

5. He further submits that order (Annexure P-12) is not in consonance with the letter (Annexure P-13) as it postulates that no urban or sub-urban land for satisfying claim of rural agriculture land would be allotted. In other words he submits that there was no claim for agricultural land. Claim as noticed above was for the urban area and this fact has attained finality as per the order dated 29.05.2012. Under Secretary had no power to interp