Teju Mal then moved the Central Government under sec.
Aggrieved by the order of the Managing officer, the first respondent Khillu Ram preferred an appeal to the Settlement officer, Jullundur, who by his order dated February 12, 1962 set aside the order of the Managing officer and remanded the case for a fresh decision under rule 30 of the Rules.
A revision petition against this order made by Teju Mal was dismissed by the Deputy Chief Settlement Officer on September 5, 1963.
After remand the case was transferred to the Assistant Settlement officer who found that the gross companypensation payable to the first respondent was higher than that of the rival claimant, Teju Mal and in terms of rule 30 allotted the entire shop to the first respondent by his order dated November 27, 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 6th December, 1964 of the Punjab Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No.587 of 1964.
33 of the Act.
In the meantime, as stated already, rule 30 had been abrogated with effect from August 13, 1963.
The first respondent filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court for quashing the order passed under sec.
Teju Mals application under sec.
Shop No.
Rule 30 is in these terms Payment of companypensation where an acquired evacuee property which is an allotable property is in occupation of more than one person.
33 held that the case should be governed by the Rules as amended in 1963 excluding rule 30, and accordingly by his order dated February 26, 1964 he set aside the order allotting the shop to the first respondent Khillu Ram and directed the property in question to be put to sale.
2 in Tripri township in Patiala which is a government built property was allotted in 1950 to the first respondent Khillu Ram jointly with one Tara Chand and his son by the Custodian of Evacuee Property.
13, 1963 made any difference to the rights of the parties companycerned in this case.
33 was heard on February 25, 1964.
The effect of deletion of rule 30 was that the properties which were in the occupation of more than one person were to be put to sale.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
By his order dated November 11, 1959 the Managing officer, Tripri and Rajpura, held that Teju Mal and Khillu Ram were in possession of the shop as allottees respectively of 2/3 and 1/3 shares therein.
862 of 1968.
The Joint Secretary to the Government of India who heard the application under sec.
In 1951 both Tara Chand and his son Left Tripri to settle elsewhere and the second respondent Teju Mal applied for allotment of their share in the shop to him.
N. Anand for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GUPTA, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a proceeding under the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The only question for determination in the appeal is whether the deletion of rule 30 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Rules with effect from August .
The question arises on the following facts.
L. Sanghi and Girish Chandra for the Appellants.
