Gurdev Singh, J. - (1.)The dispute in these proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India relates to an acquired evacuee property, house No. 9109 -9110. ward No V., Ambala Cantt, which admittedly constitutes a single indivisible unit and was originally allotted to Kalyan Singh petitioner and Ram Rakha Mal, father of the respondents 4 to 6 both being displaced persons holding verified claims. The Rehabilitation Department had originally valued this property at Rs. 5,180/ and in accordance with rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'; transferred it to the said Ram Rakha Mai on 27th September, 195b, as the net value of his verified claim (Rs. 5,014/ - ) was nearer to the reserve pike of the property than the net value of the claim held by Kalyan Singh, Rs 4,502/ - ). In the meantime Kalyan singh bad appealed against the fixation of value of the house at Rs. 5,190/ -. His appeal was accepted and the valuation was reduced to Rs. 4, 552/ -. As a result of that reduction in the valuation, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, by his order dated 23rd February, 1959 (Annexure 'B' to the petition), transferred the property to Kalyan Singh as the value of his verified claim was nearer to the value of the house as compared to the verified claim held by Ram Rakha Mal. This order was, however, passed in absence of Ram Rakha Mal, who was not a party to the appeal that was preferred by Kalyan Singh against the valuation of the house. This transfer in favour of Kalyan Singh was confirmed by the department by subsequently issuing the conveyance deed in his favour which was duly registered by the Sub Registrar, Ambala on the 7th March, 1960. On coming to know that the property bad been transferred to Kalyan Singh by the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner dated 23rd February, 1959 referred to above, Ram Rakha Mal went up in revision to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who set aside the impugned order dated 23rd February, 1959, and remanded the case for hearing the appeal of Kalyan Singh after giving due notice to Shri Ram Rakha Mal," being of the opinion that the impugned order which affected the lights of Ram Rakha Mal could not have been made in his absence and without hearing him After the remand, both the parties were heard by Shri Inder Singh Bedi, Settlement Officer exercising the delegated powers of Settlement Commissioner. As in the meantime the relevant rule 30 had been amended and the amended rule provide that, the displaced person, who was entitled to higher compensation. would be entitled to the transfer of the property, Shri Inder Singh Bedi, by his order (Annexure E') dated 9th November, 1962, held that Ram Rakha Mal was entitled to the transfer of the property in dispute. Ram Rakha Mal having unfortunately died, the property was ordered to be transferred to his successors in interest It may be mentioned here that Ram Rakha Mal had left behind two sons (Roshan Lal respondent No. 4 and Tilak Raj, respondent No. 5), besides a daughter Shriimiti Sita Rani respondent No. 6. It is in the affidavit of these respondents that in obedience to this order of Shri Inder Singh Bedi the property was transferred to respondents 4 and 5 alone as their sister Samiti Sita Rani, respondent No. 6, had given up her claim. His petition for revision having been dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Central Government, Kalyan Singh has now approached this Court assailing the validity of the transfer of the disputed house in favour of the successors -in -interest of Ram Rakha Mal deceased.
(2.)In this petition which was instituted as far back as 8th of April, 1963, the transfer in favour of successors in -interest of Ram Rakha Mal was challenged mainly on the following grounds:
(1) That the transfer made in favour of the petitioner Kalyan Singh having been confirmed by issue of the conveyance deed, which was duly registered, could not be cancelled;

(2) That rule 30 as amended had no applicability to the facts of the present case and could not be applied retrospectively;

(3) That Ram Rakha Mal having died, his children, respondents 4 to 6, were not entitled to the transfer of the property as they were not the holders of a verified claim; and

(4) That, in any case, respondents 4 to 6 were not entitled to the benefit of the amended rule 30, as none of them was in occupation of the property.

(3.)Most of the points in controversy stand concluded by various Full Bench decisions of this Court. In Shrimati Balwant Kaur v/s. The Chief Settlement Commissioner : 1963 (65) P.L.R. 1141, it was ruled by a Full Bench of this Court that an order of transfer could be reversed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, even where a Sanad had been granted or a sale deed had been executed, affirming the rule laid down in Bara Singh's case, 1959 (61) P.L R. 127 This rule was affirmed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mithoo Shahni and ethers v/s. The Union of India and others : 1964 (66) P.L.R. 695, where it was observed; "if an order of allotment which is the basis upon which a grant is made, is set aside it would follow that the grant, cannot survive, because in order that that grant should be valid it should have been effected by a competent officer under a valid order. If the validity of that order is effectively put an end to it would be impossible to maintain that the grant still stands.