JUDGMENT Rajive Bhalla, J. (Oral) - The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 12.09.1980 and 15.02.1989, passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and the Financial Commissioner, Revenue and Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana respectively. During pendency of these proceedings, petitioner No. 1 has withdrawn from the writ petition. 2. Bal Kishan and Ram Rang were admittedly displaced persons from Pakistan. In recognition of this claim, they were given possession of plot Nos. 421 and 488, respectively in the year 1950 as rural allottees. The formal letters of allotment were issued to Bal Kishan and Ram Rang and other allottees by the Managing Committee on 08.09.1955. Petitioner No. 2 alleges that Bal Kishan and Ram Rang exchanged these plots. Bal Kishan received plot No. 421 and Ram Rang received plot No. 488. Petitioner No. 2 purchased plot No. 488 from the legal representative of Bal Kishan. 3. A notification dated 24.07.1954 was issued under the Punjab Municipal Act, extending municipal limits of Municipal Council, Rohtak, to include the land in dispute. After a gap of 24 years, the Tehsildar, Sales forwarded a reference dated 14.08.1979 to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, seeking cancellation of allotments to allottees, including Bal Kishan and Ram Rang, on the ground that as on the date of allotment, the land fell within municipal limits it was no longer rural property and therefore, could not be allotted. The Chief Sales Commissioner directed ex parte proceedings against Ram Rang and vide order dated 12.09.1980, accepted the reference, cancelled the allotments made to Ram Rang, Bal Kishan and all other allottees. 4. The aggrieved allottees filed separate revisions. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, accepted the revisions vide order dated 05.05.1987, set aside the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and affirmed the allotment by holding that as allottees were holding quasi-permanent allotments before the land was included in municipal limits, the delay in issuing the actual letter of allotment cannot deprive them of their entitlement. 5. Smt. Prabha Chhabra, claiming to be daughter of Ram Rang also filed a revision, challenging the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and arrayed petitioner No. 2 as a respondent. The revision came up for consideration before another learned Financial Commissioner. 5. Smt. Prabha Chhabra, claiming to be daughter of Ram Rang also filed a revision, challenging the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and arrayed petitioner No. 2 as a respondent. The revision came up for consideration before another learned Financial Commissioner. Vide order dated 15.02.1989, the Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision by holding that as allotment was made after the land came to fall within municipal limits, it was rightly cancelled. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the orders dated 05.05.1987 and 15.02.1989, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue and Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana. 7. Admittedly, vide order dated 08.09.1955 Bal Kishan and Ram Rang were allotted plot Nos. 421 and 488 alongwith other allottees. The Tehsildar recommended the cancellation of this order. The Tehsildars recommendation was accepted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and all allotments made on 08.09.1955 were cancelled. The Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 05.05.1987 set aside this order by holding as follows :- "4. I have heard the learned counsel for the State as well and have gone through the record. The entitlement of the allottees and the manner in which it was to be given determined as far back as 1950 and this fact is clear from the document placed at Ex. RI. Most of the allottees took possession before 1954. In any case, there is no dispute regarding the fact that all of them were entitled to land in these colonies if the allotments were to be made before 1954. If the actual allotment letter was issued in 1958, even though there was a public notification regarding the inclusion of these two colonies in the municipal limits, the blame cannot be laid at their door. It is also incomprehensible as to why no action was taken for long 24 years. In this connection, it is worth noting that even in the year 1979, the first list prepared was of 40 persons which was later reduced at the allotment in 16 cases was found to be in order. In a majority of cases the allottees or their successors-in-interest or vendees have already raised substantial construction and it would be uncalled for hardship for them if they are uprooted at this stage. In a majority of cases the allottees or their successors-in-interest or vendees have already raised substantial construction and it would be uncalled for hardship for them if they are uprooted at this stage. As mentioned earlier, the decision to make allotments in these colonies, the area to be allotted and the persons to whom it was to be allotted, was taken as far back as in 1950 and it would be incorrect to single out only a few allottees, who whatever reasons including any possible delay on the part of the department, got the actual allotment only in 1955. Under these circumstances, I am of the definite view that the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 12.09.1980 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside in so far it relates to the petitioners. In any case, these petitioners were holding quasi permanent allotment and there is no case for disturbing their possessions of the disputed plots at this stage. This order will not, however, cover cases, if any, relating to these petitioners where the original allotment itself has been separately cancelled for any other reason. In such cases, the matter can be taken up at the level of the Chief Settlement Commissioner who would be free to pass any order after giving an opportunity to the parties of being hearing." Prabha Chhabra, petitioner No. 1, d/o Ram Rang also filed a revision against the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner but her petition was dismissed by holding as follows :- "It has came on record that the plot in question was included within the Municipal Area of Rohtak by the notification dated 24.7.1954 and, therefore, had become urban land. It has also come on record that allotment of Plot No. 488 in favour of late Shri Ram Rang was made on 8.9.1955 by managing committee. Therefore at the time of the original allotment, the land has already become urban land and could not be allotted in lieu of the claims of rural/sub-urban land. Thus, the original allotment to Shri Ram Rang was not legal and has to be set aside. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order dated 12.9.1980 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana and dismiss the revision petition." 8. Thus, the original allotment to Shri Ram Rang was not legal and has to be set aside. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order dated 12.9.1980 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana and dismiss the revision petition." 8. It is, therefore, apparent that with respect to the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the Financial Commissioners have passed two diametrical opposing orders, one upholding and the other setting aside the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The findings recorded in these orders, cannot be reconciled by reference to facts or by reference to law. In this view of the matter and despite the long delay, on account of pendency of the writ petition, I have no option but to remit the matter to the Financial Commissioner. The writ petition is therefore, allowed, the order dated 15.02.1989 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue and Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana, for adjudication afresh after taking into consideration the earlier order dated 05.05.1987. Parties are directed to appear before the Financial commissioner, Revenue and Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana on 15.07.2011. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.