Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.—This petition by Govindram son of Uttamchand Shivanani, a displaced person residing at Ajmer, was originally filed impleading the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as respondent No. 1) as the sole respondent and invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution and praying for a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ in the nature thereof restraining the said respondent from acting on the order of the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi, (who is now respondent No. 2 in the amended writ petition) cancelling the transfer of property N.A.M.C. XIX/165 (now A.M.C. XIX/213) made in his favour and further prohibiting him from resuming the said property or selling it by public auction or otherwise. On the 10th of October, 1957 when the case came up before a Bench of this Court, it was ordered that as the validity of the order of respondent No. 2 dated the 7th of September, 1957, is being challenged, he should also be made a party. It was also ordered that Gagandas Balani (respondent No. 3) on whose appeal respondent No. 2 ordered the cancellation of the transfer being an interested party should also be impleaded as opposite party. The writ application was consequently amended and respondent No. 2 and Gagandas Balani as respondent No. 3 were made parties and a prayer for the issue of an appropriate writ or direction was also added. For a proper understanding and appreciation of contentions requiring to be answered in this case, it is necessary to set forth in detail the facts and circumstances leading to this petition.

2. Property No. A.M.C. XIX/165 (now A.M.C. XXI/213) (hereinafter referred to as the disputed property) belonged to one Mohd. Abdul Hafiz. The present petitioner took on rent in the year 1947 this disputed property from the said Mohd. Abdul Hafiz, who subsequently having migrated to Pakistan, the property vested in the Custodian of Evacuee property and the petitioner obtained an allotment of the property in his favour under No. 1406/1904. The petitioners application for receiving compensation on account of his claim in respect of properties left in Pakistan was pending with the Competent authorities. He accordingly applied for allotment of the disputed property on a permanent basis in lieu of his claim to the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Ajmer, who, however, by his order dated the 24th of November 1955 found that the petitioner was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 5699/- only and adjusted this amount towards public dues outstanding against him. One of the items of the public dues found outstandings against the petitioner was on amount of Rs. 193/8/- on account of the rent of this disputed property for a period upto 31st October, 1955. As no amount was payable to the petitioner on account of compensation on the findings of the Regional Settlement Commissioner the question of the allotment of the disputed property to the petitioner did not arise. The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi, in which amongst other contentions he raised a plea that the property be given to him and mat rent should not have been charged from him with effect from 1.11.1953. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, after making necessary enquiries into matters to be proved for allotment of the property to the petitioner, held that the petitioner was in occupation of the property and that no rent should have been charged from him with effect from 1.11.1953. The Chief Settlement Commissioner observed that as the petitioner "had put in an application 1953, the rules relating to the remission of rents to claimants of his category should have applied (and) arrears after last November, 1953 should not have been deducted".

3. After this order, on information supplied to the Custodian, Evacuee Property, Ajmer, by the Regional Settlement Commissioner. Ajmer, Assistant Custodian of Evacu