D. K. Mahajan, J. ( 1 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows. The petitioner is one Swami Ganesh Das Ji Udasi. He is the Chella of Swami Harnam Das, the last incumbent of gaddi known as Shri Sadhbella Tirath, Satguru Bankhandi Ashram. This Ashram was situated at Sukkur (Sind) now part of West Pakistan. After the partition of the country, Swami Harnam Das executed the will annexure b to the petition. Whereby he appointed the petitioner as his Chella. This is a registered will and it will be appropriate to notice some of its pertinent provisions. In the opening part of the will, it is stated that- ". . . . . . . . . LEST there should arise disputes regarding the gaddi of Sri Sadhbella Tirath Sukkur and the property attached to it, I make this will, of my own free will, in full possession of senses. . . "there after is the recital regarding a number of wills exacuted by the said Mahant and their revocation by this will. The will then recites that. . . . . . . . . . . . All the Sadhus residing there are under the control and subordination of the Gadesar Mahant Sahib of Shri Sadhebella Tirath Sukkur and the property of Sadhbella Tirath-moveable and immovable thereof and of the abovementioned Asthans and Mandirs etc. is the property of the Gadesar Mahant of Shri Sadhbella Tirath of which the executant is the Gadesar Mahant now and I am the owner of all the property movable and immovable of Shri Sadhbella Tirath Asthans and all the property is in my possession and enjoyment and none else has any right thereto or interest therein. It is also recited that during the life time of the executant, he was to be the owner of the property and no one else was to have any right or interest in it. After his death, his chella ". . . . . . GANESH Das will be entitled to sit on my gaddi of the above mentioned Sadhbella Asthan Sukkur and he will inherit, for his whole life, the property of Sri Sadhbella Tirath Sukkar and of the above mentioned subordinate Asthans and Mandirs that exists this day or comes to light hereafter or that which is acquired hereafter. . . . . GANESH Das will be entitled to sit on my gaddi of the above mentioned Sadhbella Asthan Sukkur and he will inherit, for his whole life, the property of Sri Sadhbella Tirath Sukkar and of the above mentioned subordinate Asthans and Mandirs that exists this day or comes to light hereafter or that which is acquired hereafter. All this property belongs to S:-i Sadhbella Tirath Asthan After my demise, Bawa Ganesh Das will be entitled to sit on the gaddi of Sri Sadhbella Tirath Sukkur and the above named Ganesh Das will be the owner, possessor and custodian of all the property, moveable and immovable of the above mentioned Asthans and Mandirs etc. during his life time",under clause 13 of the will, it is provided that :- "after my death no gaddinashin Mahant will have the right to alienate by gift, lease or mortogage the existing immoveable property of Shri Sadhbella or that which might be acquired later". Right of alienation is conferred under very limited circumstances and that too for purposes of the institution. ( 2 ) CLAUSE 16 of which, there has been a lot of argument before me reads thus- "after my death he who succeeds as, above or any other person will have no right to appoint trustees or Amins for the property or the administration of Sri Sadhbella or to take decision tharefor. But if any one would act to the contrary, it will not operate, in any case. The righful claimant will have the right to administer Sri Sadhbella Tirath Sukkur but will have no power to appoint trustees or Amins or to take decision aboat or to effect sale". After, clause 17, the whole of the property is mentioned and thereafter the executant has put his signatures to the will. ; ( 3 ) DUE to the exigencies of the partition,. the Mahant, that is, Swami Harnam Das moved to India and settled in Banaras, where he died in 1949 and thereafter, the present petitioner succeded to the gaddi in accordance with the will annexure b tothis petition. The petitioner applied for registration of his claim under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 and that claim was duly registered with regard to the properties specified in the will. The total value of the property four which the claim was registered, was stated to be Rs. 8,63,100. 00. The petitioner applied for registration of his claim under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 and that claim was duly registered with regard to the properties specified in the will. The total value of the property four which the claim was registered, was stated to be Rs. 8,63,100. 00. After the coming into force of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act No. 44 of 1954, the amount of compensation, was determined at 1. 31. 992. 00 in the year 1957. Before any property could be allotted to the petitioner in lieu of this claim or compensation paid towards it, the department suo motu issued a notice annexure "k" to the petition requiring the petitioner to show cause why his verified claim should not be revised. The petitioner appeared in response tothis notice and his claim was revised and set aside on the ground that the petitioner s claim could not be registered with regard to religious and charitable properties. It may, however, be mentioned that no hearing was given to the petitioner when the order setting asids his claim was passed. This appears from the decision of this court in Civil Writ 213-D/1959 which will be presently noticed, to order ravisln^ tlij claim was passed by Mr. P. L. Sood, Aijitioial Sittlem it C^nnisssioasr oa 24th January, 1959, which is anasxure l to th3 petition was allowed against this order a petitioa under Article 225 of th3 Constitution of India was moved in this Court. Tait pitltioa was i ilo/vil and th3 order of Mr. Sood was quashed on th3 gro atii that it has bsen passed without giving the petitioner, a hsaring. It is appar^at from th3 orderof this court that the learned Juige quashed this order on the basis of the concession made by the Department. It was accordingly directed that the matter should be. further processed in accordance with law. Thereafter in presence of the petitioner, the matter was reconsidered and the impugned order was passed by Shri K. L. Wason, Additional Settlement Commissioner on the 4th February 1954, this is annexure q to the petition. The operative part of the order is that the properties for which th3 claimant filed the present claim were hld to bs properties of a public trust of a religious and charitable nature. The operative part of the order is that the properties for which th3 claimant filed the present claim were hld to bs properties of a public trust of a religious and charitable nature. It was directed that the Regional Settlement Commissioner concgrnad was to take notice of the above facts under provision of S3ction2 (l) (e)of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. No further proceedings were taken against this order bsfors any authority and the pstitioner has moved this court under Articles 226 ani 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 4 ) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no power in any one of the authorities under the Displaced Persons (Clains) (Supplementry) Act, 1954 authorizing revision of the claim verified under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 44 of 1950 on the ground that the property is of religious or charitable character. This contention is sound and is supported by a decision of this court in Bawa Kar- andas v. the Chief Settlement Commissioner, C. W. No. 95-D/1955 decided by Mehr Singh J, on 12th November, 1957. But this will not solve the problem so far as the payment of compensation to the petitioner is concerned. ( 5 ) THE operative part of Mr. K. L. Wason s order is that the time when compensation is to be paid, the authority concerned has to keep in view the provisions of section 2 (e) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, the definition of verified claim in this Act is section 2 (e) which in these terms ;- "verified claim means any claim registered under the displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 (XLIV of 1950) in respect of which a final order has been passed under that Act or under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954 (12 of 1954), and includes any claim registered on or before the 31st day of May, 1953, under the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act XII of 1948), or under the Patiala Refugees (Registration of Land) Claim Ordinance, 2004 (Ord. 10 of 2004 Bk) and verified by any authority appointed for the purpose by the Government of Punjab the Government of Patiala and East Punjab States Union, as the case may be, which has not been satisfied wholly or partially by the allotment of any evacuee land under the relevant notification specified in section 10 of this Act, but does not include. (1) Any such claim registered in respect of property held in trust for apublic purpose. (ii) except in the case of a banking company for the purpose of sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 6, only- (a) any such claim made by or oil behalf of any company or association whether incorporated or not ; (b) any such claim made by a mortgagee or other person hold- ing a charge or lien on immovable property belonging to a displaced person in West Pakistan ;it will be seen that this definition is narrower than the definition of a varified claim in section 2 (f) of the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act of 1954. In that Act, the verified claims is defined to mean as- "any claim registered under the principal Act in respect of which a final order has been passed under that Act ;"if we examine the provisions of the principal Act, that is, the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950, it will be noticed that it does not provide that when the claims are being registered, it should be enquired into as to whether the. claims are in individual capacity or as a trustee or in any other capacity. The definition of claim in this Act is as follows. "claim meams the assertion of a right to the ownership of or to any interest- (i) Any immovable property in West Pakistan which is situate within an urban area ; or (ii) Such class of property in any part of West Pakistan other : than in any urban area as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf in the official Gazette. The claim of the pititioner was registered under the Displaced Persons (Claim-) A;t of 19 53, and under that Act, it was not, at that time, necessary to examine whether the petitioner was making the claim in his individual capacity or as a trustee. The claim of the pititioner was registered under the Displaced Persons (Claim-) A;t of 19 53, and under that Act, it was not, at that time, necessary to examine whether the petitioner was making the claim in his individual capacity or as a trustee. This matter, for the first time assumed importance, when the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954 was enacted and it gave a restricted meaning to the term verified claim". This definition I have already quoted above and it will be seen that any claim registered under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act of 1950 would not be a claim within the meaning of this Act, if it is in respect of a property held in the trust for a public purpose or a public purpose of religious or charitable nature. Therefore, whenever any person holding a verified claim moves the authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act either for the determination of his claim or for payment of compensation the question will atonce arise-Whether his claim is a verified claim within the meaning of section 2 (e) of the Act. If it is a verified claim, the authorities have no option but to determine it and pay compensation accordingly ; but if it is not a verified claim within the meaning of the definition, the authorities are not bound to entertain the claim. It is this aspect of the matter which has to be kept in view in determining whether any relief should be granted to the petitioner in these proceedings. It is for this reason that I have takenpains to set out in extenso the contents of the will, because that is the character on which the petitioner basis liis claim. The will leaves no manner of doubt that the property which came into possession of the petitioner came into his possession as a trustee. The contension of the learned counsel for the petitioner that that property came into his possession as private property is wholly unten able. The testator, all through maintained that the property belonged to Ashram and whenever he used the expression, he was the owner of the property. That expression must be understood to mean that he was the owner in the sense in which a Mahant is the owner of trust property and this distinction is well-known to law. The testator, all through maintained that the property belonged to Ashram and whenever he used the expression, he was the owner of the property. That expression must be understood to mean that he was the owner in the sense in which a Mahant is the owner of trust property and this distinction is well-known to law. ( 6 ) THIS brings ms to consider the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the peititioner. The first contention is that the claim varified under ths Displaced Persons (Claims) Act of 1950 could not be revised under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementry Act, 1954. As I have already said, no fault can be found with this contention and this is supported by a single Bench decision of this court. Therefore, in so far as the autorities were under the impression that they could revise this scheme under section 5 (1) (b) of the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, they ware in a grievous error. ( 7 ) THE second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the compensation is determined under the Act with reference to a verified claim that compensation cannot be revised or with-held, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act gives ample power to the authorities concerned to revise the determination of the compensation aswell as with-hold the payment of the compensation, in case the authoritias came to the conclusion that the person entitled to it does not hold a verified claim, as defined in the Act. Therefore, the question again turns not on the determination of the first contention of the learned counsel that a verified claim registered under the Displaced Persons Claims Act is final for all purposes, this verified claim will only be good if it falls within the definition of verified claim as defined in section 2 (e) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. It is this verified claim which will entitle the petitioner to compensation under the Act. It is not disputed that if it be held that property held by the petitioner is religious and charitable property or trust property, the petitioner will not be entitled to compensation in lieu of it. It is this verified claim which will entitle the petitioner to compensation under the Act. It is not disputed that if it be held that property held by the petitioner is religious and charitable property or trust property, the petitioner will not be entitled to compensation in lieu of it. All that the petitioner maintains is that the verified claim registered under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act could not be revised under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. A contention on which there is no dispute. This contention by it self is of no use for such a claim does not avail the petitioner so far as the matter of payment of compensation is concerned. ( 8 ) IN this view of the matter, it is not necessary to decide the other contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner which, however, I may notice at this stage. The third contention was that the authorities concerned had not acted under section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act but under section 5 of the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, the fourth contention raised was that the decision of R. P. Khosla. J. operate as res judicata. The fifth contention advanced was that, the construction of the will by Shri K. S. wason is wholly erroneous because according to the will, the petitioner was given this property in his own right as his private property. It is also maintained that there is nothing to debar an Udasi Sadhu to own private property and in this connection, reference has been made to a large number of decisions of the Privy Council and of various High Courts, namely- (1) Patel Chhotabhai and others v. Jnan Chandra Basak and others". (2) Pandit Parma Nand v. Nihal Chand and anothers. (3) Baba Kartar Singh Bedi v. Dayal Das and others. (4) Gurmukh Singh v. Lalu Singh and others . (5) Puja Maya Rishi and others v. L. Ram Chand and others". (6) Shamdas alias Atamparkash chella of Bawa Ramdas and another v. Gurmukhsingh-Ramsingh and another". The learned counsel also raised a further contention that the displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act cannot affect-a verified claim restroapectively. (4) Gurmukh Singh v. Lalu Singh and others . (5) Puja Maya Rishi and others v. L. Ram Chand and others". (6) Shamdas alias Atamparkash chella of Bawa Ramdas and another v. Gurmukhsingh-Ramsingh and another". The learned counsel also raised a further contention that the displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act cannot affect-a verified claim restroapectively. The view that I have taken of the matter does not requiredetermination of all these contentions because the petitioner can only get relief if his claim is a verified claim within the meaning of section 2 (e) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. I have already demonstrated that this claim does not fall within the definition of the aforesaid Act. The mere fact that it is a good verified claim under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act of 1950 is of no consequence coupled with the further fact that the claim could not be revised under section 5 of the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954. ( 9 ) THE entire fate of this petition depends on a short question of fact, namely, whether the property dealt within the will. is private property or trust property. I have already dealt with the will which is a probated will in extenso and I have agreed with the finding of Shri K. L. Wason, Additional Settlement Commissioner that the property in dispute is trust property, In this view of the matter, even if the order revising the verified claim of the petitioner with regard to the property covered by the will is set aside, the petitioner will not be entitled to any relief because with regard to trust properties, no compensation is admissible under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. It is settled law that a Court will not pass an order which will, for all practical purposes, be a dead letter. That would be the case, so far as the present proceedings are concorned. It is for this reason that I have declined to interfere under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The result, therefore, is that this petition fails and is dismissed; but there will be no order as to costs.