JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J.: - The petitioner Company has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 6.6.1986, passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary to Government Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, exercising the powers of Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Displaced Persons Act’). 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. In the present case, the petitioner Company is claiming itself to be in possession of the land in question, measuring 712 square yards, comprised in Khasra Numbers 3152 and 3153, situated at Rohtak, as lessee. This land was belonging to erstwhile Nawab of Dujana. Undisputedly, the land in question became evacuee land and vested in the custodian of the evacuee property. In the year 1976, the petitioner company applied for transfer of the said land. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, vide order dated 27.2.1976 ordered that price of the site be assessed and charges be recovered within 15 days, failing which the property be put to auction. The petitioner company, being not satisfied with the said order, approached the Financial Commissioner under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons Act. During those proceedings, Vaish Education Society, Rohtak (respondent No.3) also got impleaded itself in the case. Thereafter, on the basis of the aforesaid order dated 27.2.1976, Tehsildar (Sales) Rohtak, asked the company to make payment at the rate of ‘ 131.25 per square yard, plus upto date rent and cost of the super structure, which was to be assessed by the PWD authorities. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.8.1979, the Financial Commissioner, while setting aside the order dated 27.2.1976, remanded the matter to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for deciding afresh. 4. Thereafter, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, after hearing both the parties, vide his order dated 19.4.1982, ordered that the land be sold to the petitioner company at the rate of Rs.100/- per square yard. Against the said order, respondent No.3 Society filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons Act, wherein the following order was passed on 6.6.1986 : “I have heard both the parties and have considered the matter. Against the said order, respondent No.3 Society filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons Act, wherein the following order was passed on 6.6.1986 : “I have heard both the parties and have considered the matter. I think that if some of the adjoining land was sold by the Department at ` 131.25 per square yard in 1976, it would not be correct to assess it as Rs.100/- per square yard after a lapse of number of years. I am of the view that the whole matter, including that of eligibility of the respondent company for transfer, as well as the price to be charged, needs to be gone into, in detail. The case is, accordingly, remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits, after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard. The order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 19.4.82 is set aside.” Against the said order, the instant writ petition has been filed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order. 6. Undisputedly, Tehsildar (Sales) fixed the price of the land at the rate of ‘ 131.25 per square yard. That price was fixed in the year 1976. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, while setting aside the said order and reducing the price to ‘ 100 per square yard has not recorded any valid reasons. Taking into account this fact and the fact that prices have gone up manifold, the Financial Commissioner set aside the said order. In my opinion, while remanding the matter, the Financial Commissioner has rightly observed that the Chief Settlement Commissioner will take a fresh decision with regard to eligibility of the petitioner company as well as the price to be charged, as these issues are required to be gone into in detail. In my opinion, by the remand order, no serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner company. It is always open for it to argue before the Chief Settlement Commissioner regarding his eligibility as well as price of the land. The earlier order dated 27.2.1976, passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, does not say any thing regarding the eligibility of the petitioner company to get the land transferred in its name on payment of price. It is always open for it to argue before the Chief Settlement Commissioner regarding his eligibility as well as price of the land. The earlier order dated 27.2.1976, passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, does not say any thing regarding the eligibility of the petitioner company to get the land transferred in its name on payment of price. In light of that non-speaking order, the Financial Commissioner has rightly remanded the matter for fresh decision on the issue of eligibility of the petitioner company as well as price of the land. I do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner company that respondent No.3 society was having no locus standi. Under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons Act, the Financial Commissioner is the authority, who can pass the order exercising the powers of Central Government and respondent No.3 society is claiming that the disputed land is of higher value, therefore, it should be sold by public auction. Therefore, its locus to ask the department to sell the land in public auction can not be questioned. 7. Keeping in view all the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. 8. Dismissed. 9. However, it will be open for the petitioner company to argue before the Revenue Authorities regarding its eligibility with regard to transfer of the disputed land on the basis of the earlier order as well as with regard to price of the land. ---------0.B.S.0------------