Judgment

P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J: - This appeal is against the order of cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the Appellant s father in 1948 under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) in the following circumstances:

After the partition of India in 1947 the Appellant s father Shri Ram Chander filed a claim in respect of the land which was owned and left behind by him in Pakistan. In respect of this claim land measuring 49.2 Standard acres was allotted to him in village Pasina Kalan, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal. Soon thereafter the Appellant s father, after this allotment died in 1948 leaving the Appellants and their brother Shri Ved Prakash as the only legal heirs. After the proprietary rights were conferred upon the Appellants, Ved Prakash sold his share of the land to Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 by Registered sale deed dated 27th November, 1957. It appears that the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer, Department of Rehabilitation, Jullundur Respondent No. 4 while verifying the claim discovered that an area of 15-171/2standard acres was in excess of what the Appellants were actually entitled to, having regard to the nature of the land left by their father in Pakistan which was not wholly canal irrigated but comprised of Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghair Mumkin land and accordingly he reopened the allotment and cancelled it to the extent of the excess. Against this order the appellants filed an appeal to Respondent 3 challenging the jurisdiction of Respondent 4, the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer to pass an order cancelling permanent rights conferred on them. Respondent 3 however referred the matter to Respondent 2 - the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab on 31-7-1964 who acting under Section 24 (1) of the Act cancelled the order of allotment to the extent of 15-17 1/2 standard acres out of the area allotted to Appellant s father. Thereafter the appeal filed by the Appellants was dismissed by Respondent 3 as infructuous. A revision against the order of the Respondent was preferred to the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act which was also rejected on the 27th May 1966. The Appellants thereafter filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders passed by the Respondents 1 to 4 which was dismissed in limine by a Bench of that Court on the 28th July 1966. Subsequently another Bench of the same Court however, granted a certificate to appeal to this Court under Article 133 of the Constitution of India in as much as following the Judgment of this Court in Ramesh v Gendalal Motilal Patnik, AIR 1966 SC 1445 it was held that the order of dismissal in limine was a final order and the value of the subject matter in dispute being Rs. 20,000/- the Appellant was declared to be entitled to the grant of a certificate to appeal as a matter of right.

2. It is contended before us by Shri Bhamari Lal learned Advocate for the Appellants that once proprietary rights have been conferred upon the Appellants in respect of the entire area of the land which is allotted to them, the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment and if this is so the High Court ought to have quashed that order in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that Respondent 3 was not justified in making a reference to Respondent 2 for cancelling the proprietary rights conferred upon the Appellants because if Respondent 4 had no jurisdiction to cancel the order, he had also no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment except to cancel the order of Respondent 4. Further the reference made by Respondent 3 to Respondent 2 is equally bad because under Sec. 19 of the Act read with Rule 102 of the Displaced Persons Compensation & Rehabilitation Rules, it is for the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer Respondent 4 to refer the matter to