Judgment J.S.Narang, J. 1. Petitioner Daljit Rai Oberoi and respondent No. 7 Satpal Oberoi are the real brothers and they are shown as sons of Amolak Ram. Satpal Oberoi participated in the auction held on August 13, 1959 by the Rehabilitation Department in regard to plot No. 89 described as urban agricultural land measuring 7 Bighas 7 Biswas. The highest bid was accepted for Rs. 26,775/-. The claim of Daljit Rai Oberoi was associated for making up the aforestated total sale price. The requisite affidavits of both the persons were duly filed. 2. It has been averred that respondent Nos. 3 to 6 had already secured quasi-permanent allotment in regard to the land measuring 2 Bighas 14 Biswas, out of the aforestated land, in a clandestine manner in the year 1957. It has also been alleged that on account of mis-representation on the part of respondent Nos .3 to 6, the endeavour was made to obtain the permanent rights in the land in regard to the aforesaid area. However, no claim was staked at the time of the auction of the entire piece of land measuring 7 Bighas 7 Biswas in the year 1959. The alleged allotment, in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 6, was cancelled by issuing requisite orders dated August 3, 1961, copy An-nexure P-1. This was challenged by respondent Nos. 3 to 6 by way of civil suit. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court categorically observed that respondent Nos. 3 to 6 were not entitled to allotment of the area in question in lieu of their real claim as the composite area, measuring 7 Bighas 7 Biswas, was offered in auction in the year 1959. However, the aforestated orders were declared null and void as no notice had been issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to the aforesaid respondents. 3. The Chief Settlement Commissioner issued appropriate notices to the aforestated respondents and after hearing them, cancelled the allotment made in their favour vide three separate similar orders dated July 25, 1968. A copy of such order has been attached as Annexure P-2. However, despite the aforestated order, respondent Nos. 3 to 6 approached Rehabilitation Department at Delhi, without disclosing the true facts, claiming that the said respondents are entitled to the allotment of the land in lieu of real claim. A copy of such order has been attached as Annexure P-2. However, despite the aforestated order, respondent Nos. 3 to 6 approached Rehabilitation Department at Delhi, without disclosing the true facts, claiming that the said respondents are entitled to the allotment of the land in lieu of real claim. The Regional Settlement Commission, Jalandhar, vide letter dated 1.6.1962, informed the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Delhi, that the land could be offered to the said respondents at the rate of Rs. 25/- per Biswa in lieu of their claim. The rate was revised and the said respondents were offered the land at the rate of Rs. 3/- per Biswa vide letter dated December 19, 1964, copy Annexure P-3. The said respondents made representation dated March 18, 1969 to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, as aforestated. They had been given the liberty to challenge the cancellation of their allotment as aforestated. A categoric reply was sent by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide letter dated 5.6.1969, copy Annexure P-4. 4. In view of the aforestated status, respondent No. 1 i.e. Satpal Oberoi and the petitioner were offered the land measuring 7 Bighas 7 Biswas as the auction purchasers and pursuant to Rules 87 and 90 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1959. The sale certificate, copy Annexure P-5, was issued in favour of respondent No. 7 (Satpal Oberoi). 5. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 challenged the aforestated certificate by way of review in the year 1974. It has been averred that the petitioner and respondent No. 7 were never ever impleaded as respondents. An interim order against the effect of the sale certificate was granted by the reviewing authority without issuing any notice to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 7. 6. It has been averred that the sale certificate granted in favour of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 7, was cancelled by the Chief Settlement Commissioner without issuing any notice to the petitioner, though respondent No. 7 looks to have appeared before the Chief Settlement Commissioner but the case was not contested in the right perspective. It has been mentioned in the grounds before this Court that the counsel for respondent No. 7 argued the case without knowing the grounds for review as no copy of the ground was served upon respondent No. 7. It has been mentioned in the grounds before this Court that the counsel for respondent No. 7 argued the case without knowing the grounds for review as no copy of the ground was served upon respondent No. 7. It has also been averred that suo moto notice was conveyed during the course of arguments to the counsel for respondent No. 7 and he continued to argue the case at that time. The review petition was accepted vide order dated May 30, 1975 passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. 7. Respondent No. 7 filed C.W.P. No. 3901 of 1975, challenging the order dated May 30, 1975, passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The aforestated C.W.P. was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated August 8, 1975, upon receiving the return of the respondents. It looks that the order of this Court was never ever challenged by Satpal Oberoi (Respondent No. 7). 8. The petitioner has averred that respondent No. 7 did not inform the petitioner the status regarding the order having been passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, as also the dismissal of the writ petition by this Court. It has been averred that the petitioner, after coming to know of the aforestated fact, immediately filed an application before the Chief Settlement Commissioner for setting aside the order dated May 30, 1975. The application was allowed vide order dated April 22, 1981 and that the ex parte order dated April 22, 1975, passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner was set aside. The parties had been directed to address arguments on merit on May 14, 1981. The aforestated order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was challenged by filing R.O.R. No. 33(39) of 1981 under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana. The revision petition had been accepted by the learned Financial Commissioner vide order dated September 27, 1984 and that the order dated April 22, 1981, passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner was set aside. It has been categorically held that Satpal (respondent No. 7) had challenged the order dated May 30, 1975, vide which the sale certificate had been set aside, by way of the aforestated writ petition. It has been categorically held that Satpal (respondent No. 7) had challenged the order dated May 30, 1975, vide which the sale certificate had been set aside, by way of the aforestated writ petition. It has also been observed that the petitioner, who is the real brother of Satpal, described himself as a co-sharer in regard to the land to which, the sale certificate had been issued. It has been categorically observed that the Chief Settlement Commissioner fell into error in placing reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in re: Het Ram and Ors. V/s. The State of Punjab and Ors., 1974 0 RLR 28, especially when the said ruling stood over ruled by a Full Bench of this Court rendered in re: Biru Ram and Anr. V/s. Suraj Bhan and Ors., 1983 0 PLJ 216. The Full Bench has categorically opined that adequate given to one or more of the co-sharers, is an appropriate hearing to all the co-sharers in the eyes of law. In the absence of fraud or collusion or failure of any fair or real trial, the hearing to one or more co-sharer would amount to hearing to all share-holders. Reliance has also been placed upon various other judgments rendered by this Court which have been noticed: (1) in re: Gurdial Singh and Ors. V/s. State of Punjab and Ors., 1960 62 PLR 307. (2) in re: Bhagwana and Ors. V/s. The State of Punjab and Ors., 1966 68 PLR 307. (3) in re: Mohinder Singh and Anr. V/s. State of Haryana and Ors., 1970 0 PLJ 712. (4) in re: Jamadar Sheoji Ram V/s. Smt. Daulati Bai and Ors., 1970 0 PLJ 475. 9 It has been categorically held that respondent No. 7 being the real brother of the petitioner and also a co-owner/co-sharer did appear before the Chief Settlement Commissioner and contested the case of respondent Nos. 3 to 6, though came out to be unsuccessful. The order was challenged upto the level of High Court. The order under challenge having been passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the basis of a ruling of the High Court, which has been specifically overruled by a Full Bench of the High Court, was not sustainable. The petitioner was not entitled to the relief accordingly. The revision petition has been allowed accordingly. 10. The order under challenge having been passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the basis of a ruling of the High Court, which has been specifically overruled by a Full Bench of the High Court, was not sustainable. The petitioner was not entitled to the relief accordingly. The revision petition has been allowed accordingly. 10. The petitioner being aggrieved of the aforestated order has filed the present petition challenging the order of the learned Financial Commissioner. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Chief Settlement Commissioner has correctly set aside the order dated May 30, 1975 passed by the predecessor of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. He has argued that the learned Financial Commissioner has erred in interpreting Section 24(3) of the Act. No order, which prejudicially affects the rights of any person, shall be passed in view of the aforestated section, without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on various judgments of this Court, which are noticed as under: 1) Shri Ghana Singh V/s. Union of India, 1976 0 PLJ 395. The facts of this case are entirely distinct as the allottee had transferred the property earlier to cancellation, therefore, the notice of hearing served upon the allottee did not absolve the Chief Settlement Commissioner the duty to issue notice to the transferees. In the case at hand, the petitioner claims himself to be the co-sharer, one of the co-sharers did present himself before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the rigor of Section 24(3) of the Act stood duly complied with. 2) S. Didar Singh V/s. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab and Anr., 1979 0 PLJ 321. The facts of this case are also distinct. The allottee, after P. rights having been conferred upon him, had died and the mutation of land was duly sanctioned in favour of the legal heirs in the revenue record. Thus, the legal heirs of the deceased allottee, being interested persons, were required to be served with the notice as envisaged under Section 24(3) of the Act. The case at hand is entirely different. 3) Biru and Anr. V/s. Suraj Bhan and Ors., 1983 0 PLJ 216. The facts are again distinct from the case at hand. Thus, the legal heirs of the deceased allottee, being interested persons, were required to be served with the notice as envisaged under Section 24(3) of the Act. The case at hand is entirely different. 3) Biru and Anr. V/s. Suraj Bhan and Ors., 1983 0 PLJ 216. The facts are again distinct from the case at hand. The Full Bench in this case had opined in regard to the proceedings initiated under Sections 42 and 21 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. Sections 21 and 42 of the aforesaid Act do not in any way prescribe or mandate the formal impleading of every right holder, whether joint or separate who may be likely to be affected by the proceedings. Thus, to read the requirement of a co-sharer being first necessarily impleaded before he can be effectively represented, would be untenable and contrary to the prescription of the statute itself. This would be beyond the realm of practicability to demand impleading of each individual or joint co-sharer to every consolidation proceeding. It has also been observed that in a particular case a person is not precluded to pin point, that a right holder would be adversely affected and impleading him as a party to the application would be necessarily required but failure to do so would not in any way affect the validity or legality of the proceedings. In the case at hand, the facts are absolutely distinct. The rights determinable under the Act and the Act mentioned here above are also different. The petitioner has also not been able to establish from the facts disclosed that in what manner the right of the petitioner has been prejudiced as the representation by a co-sharer would be the representation by all. 12 Learned Counsel has argued that the claim of the petitioner having been adjusted by way of association, which is subject matter, the petitioner is highly interested person as the P. rights of the petitioner have been taken away without serving notice as envisaged under Section 24 of the Act. Since respondent No. 7 did not disclose the status with regard to the property vis-a-vis the claim of respondent Nos. 3 to 6, the petitioner is well within his rights to challenge the order passed in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 6. Since respondent No. 7 did not disclose the status with regard to the property vis-a-vis the claim of respondent Nos. 3 to 6, the petitioner is well within his rights to challenge the order passed in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 6. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had, therefore, correctly set aside the order dated 30.5.1975, and the learned Financial Commissioner had erroneously set aside the order despite true and correct facts having been divulged. 13. Learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that it is the admitted case of the petitioner that the status of the petitioner is that of a co-sharer alongwith his brother respondent No. 7, as he had participated in the auction and the petitioner had joined in associating his claim with him for the purchase of the property by way of auction. It has nowhere been said that the individual rights of the co-sharers were determinable and were claimable. In view of the settled principle by Full Bench of this Court in Biru Rams case (supra), nothing more is required to be said. The petitioner has very fairly disclosed in his pleadings that Satpal respondent No. 7 did appear before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, when the sale certificate, copy Annexure P-5, was set aside. The , order of the Financial Commissioner was also challenged by way of C. W.P., which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court and said order attained finality. The writ was filed by respondent No. 7 in the capacity as a co-sharer and that no plea was available to him that no notice under Section 24 of the Act was served. A miserable plea has been set up that respondent No. 7 could not disclose the correct facts and his lawyer also could not effectively argue the case. Such pleas are not sustainable under law and which have been correctly rejected by the learned Financial Commissioner. The order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner has been set aside, categorically observing that by placing reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court, the Chief Settlement Commissioner fell into error as the dicta of the said judgment stood overruled by virtue of a Full Bench judgment of this Court, .which has been referred above. 14. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the paper book as also the orders impugned before this Court. 15. 14. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the paper book as also the orders impugned before this Court. 15. The perusal of the facts shows that the land in question was purchased by Satpal respondent No. 7 by associating the claim of the petitioner. However, such claim resulting into issuance of a sale certificate had been rejected by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in the presence of Satpal respondent No. 7 through his counsel who was the principal auction purchaser. He rightfully challenged the order before this Court by way of civil writ petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 8.8.1975. This order was never ever challenged any further by Satpal or by the petitioner. There is no allegation levelled by the petitioner against Satpal to the effect that a fraud or misrepresentation was committed by Satpal and he has also not been able to show that the claim of the petitioner in any manner is distinguishable from the claim of Satpal. Thus, in view of the dicta of the Full Bench of this Court in Biru Rams case (supra), I am bound by the same, resultantly, the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is rejected. 16. It may be observed that the factual status as divulged by the petitioner is correct. The right flowing from a document, under the statute once denied or rejected in favour of the beneficiary, needs to be challenged in accordance with law, which admittedly has not been challenged in the right and correct perspective. There is no law which comes to the protection of a person who is negligent, callous, lazy and indifferent in regard to his right. The hierarchy created under the statute for challenging the incorrect orders has to be adhered to at that the right time and subject to the rigor of law of limitation. And, of course by invoking the jurisdiction of the competent Court. In the cases at hand, unfortunately, Satpal respondent No. 7, being the principal auction-purchaser, did not challenge the veracity of the order passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 3901 of 1975 nor the same was challenged by the petitioner. In such circumstances the Courts would also become helpless. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.