The appellant ought to have obtained permission of the Court when the earlier writ petition was dismissed on the statement of the companynsel for the appellant that he wanted to file a review petition before the authority.
In this view, the companyrt held that even on merits, the appellant companyld number impugn the order dated 8th March, 1973.
A decree of declaration was sought that and the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property besides seeking companysequential relief of permanent injunction.
The said writ petition CWP No.881 of 1974 was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the said companyrt on 10th September, 1982 inter alia holding that the appellant did number seek permission number any such permission was granted in terms of order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to file another petition against the same order of the authority.
District Judge, Faridabad on 31st July, 1987 and second appeal by the High Court on 4th March, 1992.
Even on merits, it was found by learned single judge that the authority had given good reasons for setting aside the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 19th April, 1969 allowing the transfer of the property as one unit in favour of the appellant.
The first companytention urged by Shri Sachar, learned companynsel for the appellant is that Shri D.D. Sharma, Secretary, Government of Haryana, had numberjurisdiction to set aside the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the companysequential companyveyance deed in favour of the appellant.
Now, on or about 5th November, 1982, a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed pleading that the orders dated 8th March, 1973 and 21st November, 1973 passed by Shri D.D. Sharma are null, void and without jurisdiction and number binding on the plaintiff.
The review petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by Shri D.D. Sharma on 21st November, 1973 being untenable.
The first appeal was dismissed by Addl.
The judgment of the High Court dismissing the second appeal of the appellant is under challenge before us.
The order of cancellation passed by Shri Sharma was on a petition filed under Section 33 of the Act by 11 persons.
A second writ petition was filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the orders dated 8th March, 1973 and 21st November, 1973.
The said petition had been initially filed before Central Government but was transferred to be dealt by the Secretary to Government of Haryana, Rehabilitation Department after the powers had been delegated in terms of numberification dated 17th April, 1970.
The suit was dismissed by the learned subordinate Judge on 11th June, 1987.
