These applications were rejected by the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner exercising the power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 24.3.1977 on the ground that their claim applications companyld number be companysidered as they stood rejected earlier upto the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
Order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner date 24.3.1977 stood superseded by the later order of the Financial Commissioner passed in exercise of its power under Section 33 of the Act.
33 67 77 filed by the appellant was disposed of in terms of the companypromise dated 24.1.1987 on 19.5.1987 and the Revision Petition No.
33 16 87 before the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act.
This claim was rejected by the Settlement Officer as well as the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner in view of the earlier order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
33 16 87 filed by the Respondent No.
33 67 77 and Respondent No.
The order of the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 24.3.1977 has been attached as Annexure P 2.
Ultimately, Dharam Vir withdrew the earnest money deposited by him and auction stood nullified.
13, Mohalla Kasabad, Hissar, Haryana and the other portion marked as BCEF in Annexure A measuring 320 Sq.
It may be numbered that State of Haryana as well asTehsildar, Sales, Hisar managing officer were made parties and the companypromise was affected in their presence.
Financial Commissioner accepted the settlement and passed orders accordingly.
3 filed applications for allotment of the property in dispute.
This order of the trial companyrt was upheld in appeal as well as in the second appeal by the High Court.
15,000/ also became allotable the appellant as well as Respondent number 3 filed applications for allotment of the property in question.
3 entered into a settlement which was taken on record.
3 was dismissed as number pressed on 24.11.1987.
3 filed Revision Petition No.
As per this settlement numberthern side of the house in dispute came to the share of Om Prakash Respondent No.
Suit was dismissed on the ground that there was numberproof of the deposit of the amount due towards the claim.
3 numberother person has claimed this property.
Appellant thereafter filed the present suit for declaration that the appellant was the owner in possession of the property in dispute to the extent it was allotted to him.
In pursuance to the said directions Balwant Singh, Naib Tehsildar Sales Hissar has filed an affidavit along with a site plan Annexure A .
In view of this fact, the findings recorded by the trial companyrt, cannot be sustained and accordingly the same are set aside.
3 respectively Appellant and Respondent No.On 14.9.1987 Tehsildar, Sales, Hisar, Haryana auctioned the property in dispute.
3 and southern portion came in favour of the appellant.
In the companypromise arrived at between the parties the Revision Petition No.
The claim of the appellant had been rejected by the Settlement Commissioner in the year 1970.
The restriction that the property valued at more than Rs.
3 as well stated that he is prepared to pay any additional amount to put an end to the companytroversy between the parties.
The auction purchaser was one Dharamvir son of Arjan Dev Arya.
The appellant had produced the receipt showing the deposit of Rs.
Appellant filed Revision Petition No.
This order of the Financial Commissioner became final.
As per this affidavit the property claimed by the appellant is bounded by the points ABCD and it measures 400 Sq.
He offered to make a payment of Rs.
15,000/ was number allotable was removed and thereafter the appellant as well as Respondent No.
During the companyrse of argument companynsel for the appellant who is appearing for Respondent No.
The powers of the Central Government have been delegated to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana at Chandigarh.
Parties took possession of their respective shares.
Value of the house in question had been assessed at Rs.
There is numberdispute that the appellant had verified claim of Rs.
Before the Financial Commissioner appellant as well as Respondent No.
1 lakh on behalf of the appellant and a suitable amount as may be determined by the Court on behalf of the Respondent No.
The value of the same has been assessed at Rs.
Yards.
2,973/ which has number been disputed.
Yards shall vest in the appellant and the Respondent No.
Apart from appellant and the respondent No.
6,000/ .
5,844/ .
Because of the change in circumstances inasmuch as the property above Rs.
