Shamsher Bahadur, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Avtar Singh applied on 29th of May, 1963 to the District Rent and Managing Officer, Model Town, for permanent transfer of 60 kanals and 5 marlas of land in Muktsar on the ground that he had been its sub -lessee continuously from Ist January, 1956. The transfer was claimed under the unamended rule 34. C of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, which says : Where any land to which this Chapter applies has been leased to a displaced person and such land consists of one or more Khasras and is valued at Rs. 10,000/ -or less, the land shall be allotted to the lessee : Provided that where any such land or any part thereof has been leased to a displaced person and the sub -lessee has been in occupation of such land or part thereof, as the case may be shall be allotted to such sub -lessee.
(2.) IT was the case of the petitioner that he had been in occupation of the evacuee land continuously from 1st of January, 1956 as a sublessee and the value of this land was less then Rs. 10,000/ -. It may be mentioned that rule 34 -D refers to similar cases where the value of the land in occupation exceeds Rs. 15000/ -. The petition was dismissed by the Managing Officer on 30th of July, 1963, on the ground that the application was not made within time. No time limit has been placed in the rule itself. The press -note of 5th July, 1962, however, mentioned that the applications should be filed by the 31st of August, 1962. The petitioner's application having been filed on 29th May, 1963, was dismissed. The appeal to the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, was dismissed on 2nd of December, 1963 (Annexure B) without any detailed discussion about the merits of the claim of the petitioner as a sub -lessee. It was not even discussed whether the petitioner fulfilled the essential condition as a displaced person, The Chief Settlement Commissioner in revision took the same view in his order passed on 25th March, 1964 (Annexure C), This officer took the view that the press note having prescribed the time for filing the applications, the petitioner was bound to file his claim in time. It was argued before this authority that the press note was ultra vires on basis of Division Bench Authority of this Court. It was held that, the press note could not be declared ultra vires on the ground that a limitation had been per scribed. It is contended by Mr. Sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the press note could not set a time -limit for the applications when none has been so prescribed under the statutory rules. Though in the written statement filed on behalf of the Union of India, a point is taken that the petitioner is not a sub -lessee, the matter was never adjudicated upon that basis. The claim of the petitioner was dismissed outright because of the bar of limitation. I said in Bachan Singh v. The Union of India C.W. 273 of 65 a decision which was followed by me in Ranga Singh v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, (1967) 69 P.L.R. 214 that rule 34 -D imposed no fetter of limitation and none could be so imposed by a press note or departmental instructions. The same principle would apply in case of applications made under rule 34 -C. The orders of the Settlement authorities, therefore, must be quashed and set aside. They are directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner on merits. The authorities will of course determine the question whether the petitioner fulfills the essential requirements of being a displaced person and a sub -lessee.
(3.) WITH these observations this petition would be allowed and the impugned orders quashed. There would be no order as to costs of this petition.;