S.B. Capoor, J. - (1.) THE Dispute in this Civil Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India relates to the eligibility for allotment under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (Act No. 44 of 1954) ( hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), and the rules framed thereunder, of house No. 697/13 Mohalla Sharifpura, Amritsar, which was an evacuee property and was subsequently acquired by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Act. Atma Singh, the Petitioner In this writ petition, claims to be a displaced person and the ground floor consisting of the larger portion of the house was allotted to him, while the room on the first floor was allotted to Mohinder Singh, also a displaced person. Neither of these two has any verified claim. Ajit Singh, Respondent No. 3 and the contesting Respondent to this petition had a verified claim and he is either the father or the step -father of Mohinder Singh. According to the findings by the Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner in his order, dated the 2nd 'of February 1960, which is the impugned order (copy Annexure "C") Ajit Singh was residing with Mohinder Singh in the portion of the property which was allotted to the latter. On the 30th of July 1959, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Amritsar, ordered the transfer of the entire house in favour of Ajit Singh against his compensation claim In C.A. No. P/ASR/11693. 'Atma Singh thereupon appealed and the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Amritsar by his order, dated the 30th of October, 1959 (copy Annexure 'B'), allowed the appeal directing that the property be transferred to the Appellant i.e., Atma Singh, the present Petitioner. Against this order Ajit Singh Went up in revision to the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Respondent No. 1 to the petition), who accepted the revision petition and sent the case to the Regional Settlement Commissioner with the direction that the property in question be transferred to Ajit Singh, vide his order, dated the 2nd of February 1960 (Copy Annexure 'C') Atma Singh then made an application under Section 33 of the Act to the Central Government (Respondent No. 4 to the petition), Which by the letter, dated the 13th of August 1960 (copy Annexure 'D'), declined to interfere. Hence, this present Writ petition, which originally came up before Dua, J., but by his order, dated the 16th of January 1963, was referred to a Division Bench. Respondents, other than Ajit Singh, have not put in any return contesting the Petitioner.
(2.) THE various contentions raised by the Petitioner are as follows: (i) Ajit Singh is not the father of Mohinder Singh but merely his stepfather and he never lived in the house in dispute either along with Mohinder Singh or separately. (ii) Ajit Singh gave an application, dated the 27th of February 1958 (copy Annexure 'A' to the petitions in which he prayed that compensation be given to him In cash and not by way of adjustment of the value of house No. 697/13, Mohalla Sharifpura, Amritsar, with which he had no concern. (iii)The Chief Settlement Commissioner committed an error of jurisdiction in holding that Ajit Singh was entitled to transfer of the property in question under Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, and actually it is Rule 31 which is applicable to the case. As regards the first point, it is not really material Whether Ajit Singh is the father or the step -father of Mohinder Singh and the, crucial question for determination, whether the case is to be treated as one under Rule 30 or Rule 31, is if Ajit Singh was in occupation of the property. While it is true that the allotment stood not in his name but in that of Mohinder Singh, yet the Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order, dated the 2nd of February 1960, has found as a matter of fact that Ajit Singh was originally living with Mohinder Singh in the house in dispute and as such was in lawful possession of a portion of it. In this connection reference' was made by him to ration cards Exhibits A -1 and A -2. This is a finding by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on a question of fact. Firstly, them 1 is nothing cogent to show that it is erroneous, and secondly, even if the finding on this question of fact was wrong, this Court would not in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction interfere with this finding See Nagendra Nath v. Commissioner of Hills Division : AIR 1958 SC 398 as well as a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Ram Dass T. Chugani v. Custodian -General of Evacuee Property India : 1961 -63 Pun LR 339 : AIR 1961 P&H 366.
(3.) THE second argument based on Ajit Singh's application, dated the 27th of February 1958, was advanced before the Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers, of Chief Settlement Commissioner also, who observed as follows: The mere "fact that he (Ajit Singh) gave the application, dated the 27th of February, 1958 stating that he wanted to get the compensation in cash and was not anxious to obtain the property in question,' does not in any way affect his rights to get the property transferred in his favour, as his request was not accepted and the property was available for transfer and was actually transferred to him against his compensation. This appears to be the equitable view to take on the facts of the present case. Mr. N.S. Keer, learned Counsel for the wants the Court to treat this application as creating some sort of estoppel, but this is taking much too legalistic view of the matter. One has to keep in mind the real consideration when the application was made by Ajit Singh, which was to get in cash the amount of compensation due to him on the basis of his verified claim, possibly Mohinder Singh wanted to utilise that claim towards adjustment of the price of the house, but Ajit Singh, preferred to get cash compensation and that is why he stated that he had no concern with that house. Since his, application for payment of compensation in cash was turned down it would obviously be not fair to rule out also his eligibility for transfer of the house. That is a consequence which could not be in his contemplation when he made the application.;