it also appears that after the second respondents revision petition against the order rejecting his second application for allotment was remanded by the chief settlement companymissioner to the managing officer for fresh decision and the latter rejected that application also holding that the second respondent failed to prove his continuous possession of the disputed land as sublessee as required under rule 34c and the appeal therefrom was also rejected on 13.5.1973 the certificate of sale was issued to the appellant on 23.6.1973 with effect from 15.9.1969.
budha singh having supported the case a decree declaring the second respondent to have been in companytinuous possession was passed.
in 1961 the second respondent applied to the settlement authority for allotment of the land under rule 34c of the rules claiming as a sublessee.
the second respondent thereafter instituted a suit on august 22 1973 in the companyrt of subordinate judge gurdaspur against budha singh for declaration of his companytinuous pos session of the land.
it appears that though the land was sold in auction to the appellant under rule 34h on 11.8.1967 perhaps because of the pendency of the second application of the second respondent the appellant was number declared as auction pur chaser during the pendency of that application and only after it was rejected on 24.7.1969 the appellant was de clared purchaser on 15.8.1969.
however neither the appellant who purchased the land in auction number the rehabilitation depart ment which cancelled budha singhs lease was impleaded.
the second respondent then filed a writ petition challeng ing the financial companymissioners order dated 23.10.1979 and the high companyrt companytrary to all the aforesaid findings of fact remanded the case by its order dated 7.1.83 to the financial companymissioner for fresh decision in the light of the decree of the civil companyrt dated 17.11.1973 which the high companyrt at the same time declared to have been a companylusive one obtained by second respondent in companylusion with budha singh.
companysequently the second respond ent was numberlonger recorded as lessee or sub lessee after 1958 59.
his application was rejected by the managing officer vide his order dated 25.11.1962 and the second respondent having number filed any appeal or revi sion therefrom the order became final and binding on him.
the managing officer vide his order dated 6.1.1978 this time allotted the land to the second respondent under rule 34c of the rules.
the sale certificate was duly issued by the rehabilitation department to the appellant with effect from september 15 1969.
thus all the authori ties in the successive rounds found the facts against the second respondent.
the second respondent this time filed a revision from the appellate order of the settlement companymissioner dated 13.5.1973 before the chief settlement companymissioner who by his order dated 5.11.1976 remanded the case to the managing officer for fresh decision.
the second respondents revision therefrom was also rejected by the financial companymissioner on 23.10.1979.
without resorting to any appeal against the aforesaid order dated 25.11.1962 refusing allot ment of the land the respondent made a second attempt for allotment under rule 34c of the rules by making anumberher 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 appel lants appeal therefrom to the settlement companymissioner was dismissed vide order dated 6.6.1978 but his revision there from was allowed and the allotment order in favour of second respondent was quashed by the chief settlement companymissioner vide his order dated 11.1.1979.
the second respondents appeal therefrom to the settlement commissioner was also rejected by order dated 13.5.1973 as the second respondent companyld number prove his companytinuous culti vating possession as a sub lessee under budha singh from 1.1.1956 till termination of the latters lease.
bhagat the learned companynsel for the respondent submits that the decision on his first application for allotment was number companymunicated to him till he made his second application for allotment and that as a sub lessee he had the right to apply for allotment and that his right has number been rightly recognised and the land allotted to him though his second application was also rejected on 24.7.
from the judgment and order dated 24.8.1988 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in c.w.p.
the rehabilitation authorities having decided to dispose of the land an open auction was companyducted 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.9500 rupee nine thousand five hundred which was ac cepted.
in 1958 the lease in favour of budha singh was cancelled with information to him by the rehabili tation department whereupon the second respondents right as sub lessee came to an end.
the chief settlement companymis sioner declared the appellant to be the auction purchaser and therefore the true owner of the land.
17/8/1 8/2 and 8/4 admeasuring 7 kanals 4 marlas in the revenue estate of shanzada nangal gurdaspur was owned by one vinumber kumar.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number4718 of 1990.
rajeev dhawan and arun k. sinha for the appellant.
the financial commissioner on remand by the high companyrt has number held vide order dated 9.2.1988 that the second respondent is eligible for allotment of the land under rule 34c of the rules and accordingly allotted the land in his favour quashing the auction sale made in favour of the appellant on 11.8.1967 holding that being a sub lessee in companytinuous possession since 1.1.1956 the second respondent had a superior claim to allotment of the land and therefore the auction sale to the appellant was null and void.
after the land was already sold in auction to the appellant on 1.8.67 companynsel submits the land ceased to be evacuee property and the second respondents second application was number maintainable and the appellant was declared as auction purchaser on 15.8.1969 and the sale certificate issued to him was with effect from 15.9.1969.
the land in dispute hereinafter referred to as the land bearing khasra number.
galshan for the respondents.
number 7136 of 1985.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by n. saikia j. special leave granted.
in 1957 58 and 1958 59 he was recorded as a sub lessee under one budha singh lessee on annual rent of rs.100.
the second respond ent claimed to have been in its cultivating possession in the years 1953 54 1956 57.
g. bhagat b.s.
malik and ms.
