Notwithstanding the alleged title dispute between the Rehabilitation Department and the Municipal Council, the then Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa, in purported exercise of his power which is not referable to any Rule or law, is claimed to have allotted the afore-said land to the 9th respondent, namely, the Sirsa District Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Sirsa. It is the conceded position that before the allotment, neither any advertisement was issued nor applications from other Societies invited. In other words, no transparent or fair criterion was followed while making the said allotment in a clandestine manner. It further appears that the Municipal Council challenged the mutation which was earlier sanctioned in favour of the Rehabilitation Department by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, before the Collector, who accepted the Municipal Council's appeal and directed sanctioning of mutation in favour of the Municipal Council, apparently to sanctify the allotment already made in favour of the 9th respondent. The petitioner who by that time had become absolute owner of the land preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Hisar Division. The Rehabilitation Department also filed a separate appeal. Both the appeals were allowed by the Commissioner. The 9th respondent, however, preferred a Revision Petition before the Financial Commissioner, who vide the impugned order dated 7th January, 2002 [Annexure P-14] has accepted the Revision Petition and directed that the mutation be sanctioned in favour of the Municipal Council.
