JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- In this civil writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to order dated 29.11.1989 Annexure P-8 passed by learned Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Rehabilitation Department (respondent no.1). 2. Petitioners’ case is that they are refugees from West Pakistan. In lieu of the land left by them in Pakistan, they were allotted evacuee land in Village Gudha, Karnal. The allotment was subject to review on receipt of revenue record. After receipt of revenue record, part of the land allotted to the petitioners was cancelled vide order dated 20.06.1964 being excess land. In appeal against the said order, Settlement Commissioner remanded the case to Managing Officer for fresh decision. The Managing Officer vide order dated 07.12.1967 again cancelled allotment of excess land. Petitioners filed revision petition against said order before respondent no.2-Joint Secretary to Government Haryana, Rehabilitation Department-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner (CSC). Managing Officer had also made reference to respondent no.2 regarding cancellation of proprietary rights of Jagat Mohan Lal. Respondent no.2 vide order dated 13.02.1968 stayed further proceedings before respondent no.3-Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer. The said stay order was extended and remained operative till the said revision petition was disposed of by respondent no.2 vide order dated 07.04.1969 Annexure P-3. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Registrar-cum-Managing Officer for fresh decision. The said order Annexure P-3 passed by CSC was challenged by the petitioner by way of Civil Writ Petition No.1558 of 1969 which was ultimately dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.04.1980. 3. Meanwhile the petitioners had made application dated 29.12.1967 Annexure P-1 to Tehsildar (Sales) for purchase of the excess land, allotment whereof had been cancelled. Respondent no.2 vide order dated 18.01.1968 Annexure P-2 allowed the said application of the petitioners and accordingly they were directed to deposit the reserve price of the said land totalling a little over Rs. 48,000/- according to the reserve price prevailing at that time, upto 17.02.1968. 4. The petitioners filed application dated 17.08.1981 Annexure P-4 before respondent no.2 for directing he Assistant Registrar-cum- Managing officer to decide the matter as per order dated 07.04.1969 Annexure P-3 and in the meantime, not to interfere in possession of the petitioners over the land in question. 48,000/- according to the reserve price prevailing at that time, upto 17.02.1968. 4. The petitioners filed application dated 17.08.1981 Annexure P-4 before respondent no.2 for directing he Assistant Registrar-cum- Managing officer to decide the matter as per order dated 07.04.1969 Annexure P-3 and in the meantime, not to interfere in possession of the petitioners over the land in question. Respondent no.2 vide order dated 05.01.1982 (Annexure P-5) directed respondent no.3 to dispose of the case within two months for transfer of the excess land on the rates then prevalent i.e. rates prevalent in the year 1982. Managing Officer vide order dated 25.02.1982 (Annexure P-6) re-decided the matter and cancelled allotment of excess land to the petitioners who could approach Tehsildar (Sales) for purchase of the excess area. 5. Petitioners filed application under Section 25(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) 1954 (in short Act) for correction of order dated 05.01.1982 Annexure P-5 regarding the date of reserve price to be recovered from the petitioners. Respondent no.2 vide order dated 08.04.1982 Annexure P-7 directed that the reserve price as prevailing on 18.01.1968 (the date of order Annexure P-2) be recovered from the petitioners for the excess land to be transferred to them. Accordingly, the petitioners deposited the amount of Rs. 48,100/- (a little more than the amount stated in order Annexure P-2) on 15.04.1982. On clarification sought by department, respondent no.2 vide order dated 28.04.1982 approved the transfer of land as per order dated 18.01.1968 Annexure P-2. 6. The department made reference under Section 33 of the Act assailing order dated 08.04.1982 Annexure P-7 passed by respondent no.2. The said reference has been allowed by respondent no.1 vide impugned order Annexure P-8 and consequently respondent no.1 has set aside order dated 08.04.1982 Annexure P-7 and order dated 28.04.1982. It was held that the allottees have no vested right that excess area must be transferred to them. It was held that excess area was determined only on 25.02.1982 and accordingly the applications of allottees (petitioners) for transfer of the excess land made in pursuance of that order have to be decided in the light of appropriate rules and orders of the Government on the subject. Respondent no.3 was directed to decide the applications of the petitioners accordingly. Petitioners have filed this writ petition to assail the said order Annexure P-8 passed by respondent no.1. 7. Respondent no.3 was directed to decide the applications of the petitioners accordingly. Petitioners have filed this writ petition to assail the said order Annexure P-8 passed by respondent no.1. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their assistance. 8. Counsel for the petitioners contended that order Annexure P- 7 was passed by respondent no.2 as Joint Secretary and not as CSC and consequently respondent no.1 had no jurisdiction under the Act to set aside the said order. It was argued that the disputed land being evacuee property had become part of package deal property and therefore, the Act was not applicable to the same and consequently respondent no.1 exercising the power of Central Government under Section 33 of the Act, had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. It was also argued that respondent no.2-Tehsildar (Sales)-cum- Managing Officer as Tehsildar (Sales) had power to offer the land to the petitioners on reserve price as offered vide order dated 18.01.1968 and since the said offer was never withdrawn, the petitioners are entitled to get the said land on reserve price mentioned in order dated 18.01.1968 Annexure P-2. It was also submitted that in view of stay order dated 13.02.1968 (as extended) passed by respondent no.2, the petitioners could not deposit the amount of reserve price up to 17.2.1968 as per order Annexure P-2, but the petitioners deposited the same on 15.04.1982 after order dated 08.04.1982 Annexure P-7 was passed by respondent no.2 and, therefore, there was no delay in deposit of the said amount. It was also submitted that the petitioners are even ready to pay the amount as per reserve price prevalent in the year 1989 when the impugned order was passed, without prejudice to right of the petitioners. It was also submitted that petitioners are ready to pay interest on the amount in question since the date of order Annexure P-2 till 15.04.1982 when the amount was actually deposited. It was submitted that reserve price has to be taken as on the date of application of the petitioners Annexure P-1 dated 29.12.1967 or the date of order Annexure P-2 i.e. 18.01.1968. It was submitted that reserve price has to be taken as on the date of application of the petitioners Annexure P-1 dated 29.12.1967 or the date of order Annexure P-2 i.e. 18.01.1968. Reliance in support of these contentions has been placed on various judgments namely Pala Singh (deceased) by LRs versus Union of India and others, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 873 and Rameshwar and others versus Jot Ram and another etc., 1975 PLJ, 454 of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Bishan Singh and others versus Chief Settlement Commissioner and others, 1973 PLJ, 183 and Jagmohan Singh verses Union of India, Vol.XVII-(1) ILR, 148 of this Court. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel countered the aforesaid contentions and contended that respondent no.1 had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and the same has been rightly passed. 10. I have carefully considered the matter. The contentions raised by learned senior counsel for the petitioner on the face of it appear to be very forceful. However, when examined in the context of facts and circumstances of this case and conduct of the petitioners, it becomes apparent that the aforesaid contentions, raised on behalf of petitioners, cannot be accepted. The petitioners have been blowing hot and cold in the same breath. They want to have best of both the worlds. They want to have the cake and eat it too. On the one hand, after order dated 07.12.1967 cancelling the allotment of excess land to the petitioners was passed, they moved application Annexure P-1 dated 29.12.1967 for transfer of the excess land to them at reserve price. On the other hand, at the same time, the petitioners challenged order dated 07.12.1967 by filing revision petition before respondent no.2. Application Annexure P-1 was allowed by respondent no.3 vide order Annexure P-2 dated 18.01.1968 and the petitioners had to deposit the requisite amount upto 17.02.1968. However, the petitioners played a game to avoid deposit of the said amount. The petitioners themselves in their revision petition before respondent no.2 obtained stay order dated 13.02.1968 which was extended till 07.04.1969, the date on which the said revision petition was decided vide order Annexure P-3. Even after order Annexure P-3 was passed, the petitioners filed CWP No.1558 of 1969 to challenge the said order. However, the petitioners even then did not deposit the amount required vide order Annexure P-2. Even after order Annexure P-3 was passed, the petitioners filed CWP No.1558 of 1969 to challenge the said order. However, the petitioners even then did not deposit the amount required vide order Annexure P-2. The said writ petition was also dismissed by this Court on 22.04.1980. Even then, the petitioners deposited the requisite amount two years thereafter. Thus the petitioners themselves have been delaying deposit of the amount and now want to reap benefit of the said delay. 11. Moreover, the petitioners had been pursuing two remedies simultaneously which is not permissible. If the petitioners wanted to purchase cancelled excess land on reserve price as per application Annexure P-1, they could not have simultaneously challenged the cancellation of the excess land. The petitioners had to exercise their option at that stage. Either they could purchase the excess land on reserve price or they could challenge the cancellation of the excess land. They could not avail of both the remedies simultaneously. 12. As regards order Annexure P-7, the same was passed by respondent no.2 as CSC and not as Joint Secretary. It is not a case of mere mis-description of the designation of the officer passing the said order as sought to be canvassed by learned senior counsel for the petitioners. On the other hand, the said order was passed by respondent no.2 as CSC under the Act because the petitioners themselves had filed application under Section 25(2) of the Act. Consequently, order Annexure P-7 was passed by respondent no.2 as CSC under the Act and not as Joint Secretary dealing with package deal property. In view thereof, respondent no.1 exercising the power of Central Government under Section 33 of the Act had jurisdiction to decide the reference made by the department assailing order Annexure P-7. Consequently, it cannot be said that respondent no.1 had no power under the Act to pass impugned order Annexure P-8. 13. Non-filing of written statement by respondents has no bearing on merits of the instant writ petition because the factual position regarding passing of various orders is not in dispute whereas legal questions have to be determined by this Court. Moreover, affidavit dated 02.12.2010 has been filed by respondent no.3 pursuant to order dated 17.11.2010 passed by this Court. 14. It is also significant to notice that admittedly offer made vide order dated 18.01.1968 Annexure P-2 was withdrawn by respondent no.3 vide order dated 04.03.1968. Moreover, affidavit dated 02.12.2010 has been filed by respondent no.3 pursuant to order dated 17.11.2010 passed by this Court. 14. It is also significant to notice that admittedly offer made vide order dated 18.01.1968 Annexure P-2 was withdrawn by respondent no.3 vide order dated 04.03.1968. However, the said order dated 04.03.1968 was never challenged by the petitioners in any proceedings, including the instant writ petition. In fact, the petitioners did not even make a reference to the said order in the instant writ petition. Consequently, the petitioners cannot claim any benefit under order Annexure P-2, which already stands withdrawn. In this view of the matter also, the petitioners cannot succeed in the instant writ petition. The petitioners are also guilty of concealing the material fact of order dated 04.03.1968 in the writ petition. The contention of counsel for the petitioners that offer made vide order dated 18.01.1968 (Annexure P-2) was never withdrawn is factually incorrect because the said offer was withdrawn vide order dated 04.03.1968 which has attained finality having never been challenged in any proceedings including this writ petition. 15. It may be mentioned that vide order Annexure P-8, petitioners have not been deprived of their right to purchase the excess land in accordance with law. The said right has been ordered to be determined by respondent no.3 by passing appropriate order. Now respondent no.3 has to determine the said right in accordance with law as mentioned in impugned order Annexure P-8. The petitioners after 45 years cannot now be permitted to purchase land at reserve price of the year 1967-68. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances, judments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the instant case because the petitioners themselves did not avail of the benefit of order Annexure P-2 as is apparent from their conduct as noticed hereinbefore. Moreover, order Annexure P-2 already stands withdrawn vide order dated 04.03.1968. Respondent no.1 also had jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Act to set aside order passed by CSC under Section 25(2) of the Act. 17. Resultantly, I find no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------