( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the relief claimed is a direction to set aside the order dated 18. 10. 1978 passed by the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereafter called the Act) and also order dated 17-4-1978 passed by the deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 of the Act.

( 2 ) ONE Sh. Ram Chand Bhatia migrated to India and settled in Delhi in the aftermath of partition. Being a displaced person, he was allotted property bearing No. 26/27, west Patel Nagar on 9. 8. 1951 on rent of Rs. 20/- per month. One of his sons, namely, kishan Chand Bhatia (the petitioner who has since expired during pendency of these proceedings and referred to as the petitioner) was also alloted the same premises as a co-allottee. Sh. Ram Chand Bhatia died on 10. 7. 1957. His widow, namely, Smt. Ram Lubhai (arrayed as respondent in these proceedings during which she too passed away) applied for the purchase of the entire property pursuant to press notices issued by the Central Government asking allottees on rent to apply for the purchase of such property on easy instalments. The press notices were issued in April and September 1959. Thereafter, Smt. Ram Lubhai applied for substitution of her name instead of, her husband in respect of the tenancy for the same premises. That request was acceded to by an order of the Managing Officer dated 22. 9. 1959. A provisional transfer deed dated 8. 11. 1960 was subsequently executed in favour of smt. Ram Lubhai. Smt. Ram Lubhai secured the no objection certificates in respect of the premises from other heirs of late Ram Chand Bhatia at the time of seeking substitution of her name, for the tenancy. The petitioner avers that he was unaware about the transfer of name exclusively in his mother s favour which was kept a secret and that he became aware of that position, in the year 1975. A letter was written by him to the respondents for issuing a conveyance deed in the name of the joint allottees, namely, himself and his mother Smt. Ram Lubhai. At this stage, it is alleged, the fact that the substitution made exclusively in favour of Smt. Ram Lubhai and that a provisional conveyance deed had been executed allotting the entire property to her in 1960, came to light. He, therefore, applied for an appropriate amendment or correction.

( 3 ) A corrigendum was issued on 30. 8. 1976 which resulted in the petitioner and his mother being shown as joint owners of the suit property. This decision was administratively affirmed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, through an order dated 28th October, 1976.

( 4 ) SMT. Ram Lubhai felt aggrieved by this move and applied under Section 33 of the act. That was dismissed has not maintainable by an order dated 8. 10. 1976. The chief Settlement Commissioner was thereupon requested to interfere; he declined to disturb the corrigendum after considering a report submitted by the Managing Officer in that regard. The appeal under Section 22 of the Act was dismissed as not maintainable on 30. 3. 1977.

( 5 ) SMT. Ram Lubhai and another son of the late Sh. Ram Chand Bhatia, namely, Sh. Madan Lal Bhatia (who was not arrayed as a party but was subsequently impleaded in the proceedings) filed a petition under Section 24 of the Act. That was allowed by an order dated 17. 4. 1978. The petitioner s revision petition was rejected by the impugned order dated 18. 10. 1978. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first two respondents ought not to have exercised their jurisdiction, since he along with his deceased father were joint allottees of the property; after the death of his father, the other co-allottee, i. e the mother, Smt. Ram Lubhai, could not have been allotted as a sole allottee, and could at best be treated as co-allottee, entitled to the share held by his father. It is therefore contended that the substitution effected in respect of the entir