The claims of occupant-petitioners can be joined together to determine their eligibility for the transfer of evacuee property under Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.

1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution field by Smt. Viran Bai, widow of Parshotam Lal, petitioner No. 1, and her four sons, Bhagwan Dass, Sat Narain, Bhim Sen and Madan Mohan, petitioners Nos. 4 to 5, the last two being minors, challenging the legality of the order, dated 4-9-1963 passed by the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner.

2. According to the allegations of the petitioners, they were displaced persons from West Pakistan. The husband of petitioner No. 1 migrated to India after the partition of the country. He got the house in dispute situate in Chandni Dhowk, Delhi, which was owned by one Ayub Khan, on a monthly rent of Rs. 10 on 15-2-1948 from its owner. Subsequently, Ayub Khan left for Pakistan and became an evacuee and this house vested in the Custodian as evacuee property. On 15-5-1948 Parshotam Lal applied for its allotment, but, unfortunately, he died in January, 1949. The petitioners, who are his heirs and legal representatives, continued to live in the house as tenant-allottees from 1948-1949. The Custodian, Evacuee Property, charged the entire rent from petitioner No. 1, but granted receipt in the name of Parshotam Lal. The petitioners were in occupation of the first floor, of this house, while Kishan Chand, respondent No.4, was occupying a part of the ground floor. The remaining portion of the ground floor was in possession of Lachmi Narain and Ram Chand, who were non-claimants. All the petitioners held a verified claim for Rs. 58,000 in equal shares. In addition, petitioner No. 1 had an individual verified claim for Rs. 2,815 and petitioner No. 2 for Rs. 34,000. Respondent No. 4 held a certified claim for Rs. 29,400. The petitioners applied to the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Delhi, for the transfer of this house against compensation due to them on the basis of their verified claims. By his order, dated 25-9-1961, he, however, held that respondent No. 4 was eligible for the transfer of this house, because he had the highest verified claim.

3. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners went in appeal. The same was heard by Shri Parshotam Sarup, Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, who vide his order, dated 4-9-1962 came to the conclusion that the petitioners were to be treated as individual claimants and in view of that respondent No. 4 had a better right than the petitioners. As a result, he dismissed the appeal.

4. Thereafter, the petitioners field an application under S. 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the Central Government, but the same was also dismissed on 14-9-1962. This led to the filing of the present writ petition on 2-2-1963.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Rehabilitation Officers had misconstrued R. 30 framed under the Act. The petitioners had, after the death of Parshotam Lal, filed claims for verification in regard to the property left by him in Pakistan as his heirs. They were in occupation of the house in dispute and also held verified claims. In view of this, their claims should have been treated as a single unit. That being so, they had a better right to the transfer of the house in dispute in their favour as against respondent No. 4. For this submission, reliance was placed on a Bench decision of this Court in Wazir Chand V/s. Piran Ditta, ILR 1961(1) Punj 59. It was also contended that petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 were minors and were living with their natural guardian, petitioner No. 1. In any case, their claims at least should have been clubbed with that of petitioner No. 1 in that view also, their verified claim was higher than that of respondent No.4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4, on the other hand, argued that the officers below had correctly interpreted R. 30. Parshotam Lal was not the allottee of the house in dispute, but it was petitioner No. 1. The petitioner had filed separate claims for their properties and, therefore, their claims