A sanad was also issued on November 5, 1955.
The appellants also produced affidavits from the legal representatives of the previous owners of the property in Pakistan which they had to abandon to show that their predecessor granted occupancy right in the property to the predecessor in interest of the appellants.
The appellants filed an application for revision of the order under Section 33 of the Act before the union of India, Department of Rehabilitation.
He, therefore, cancelled the allotment evidenced by the sanad by his order dated June 19, 1963.
The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, in the exercise of his power under Section 24 2 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954, hereinafter called the Act, issued numberice to the appellants to show cause why the allotment should number be cancelled.
The Managing Officer cum Assistant Registrar of the Rehabilitation Department at Jullundur, on the scrutiny of the records came to know that the land in question was wrongly allotted to the appellants.
The appellants filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High Court challenging the companyrectness of the order.
He, therefore, forwarded the papers to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, for appropriate action.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine and this appeal, by special leave, is against this order.
The appellants appeared before him and companytended that the land was allotted after full enquiry about the right of the appellants to get the allotment.
The revision was dismissed for substantially the same reasons as those given by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in his order.
457 of 1067 by the High Court of Delhi.
The reasoning of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was that the Jamabandi in respect of the land showed that the appellants had numberoccupancy rights therein and so numberreliance can be placed on the affidavits produced by the appellants.
The Chief Settlement Commissioner was number satisfied about the occupancy right claimed by the appellants in the land in Pakistan.
The appellants are displaced persons from West Pakistan.
On the basis of the claim made by them that they were occupancy tenants of 125 acres of land in the village of Mauza Khunde in Montgomery District and as a companysequence of the partition of the companyntry they had to abandon the land, Mr. Tirlok Singh, I.C.S., the then Director General of Rehabilitation, allotted 55 acres of land to them by an order dated June 12, 1953.
Mathew, J. This is an appeal, by special leave, against the judgment and order passed in Civil Writ No.
