P. D. Sharma,j. ( 1 ) SHRI Anant Singh petitioner in his writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has prayed that the orders of (1) the Managing Officer dated 7th December, 1958, and 21st Fabruary, 1959, (2) the Settlement Commissioner (G. B. P.) dated 15th July, 1959, and (3) Mr. G. B. talvani. Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 19th March, 1960, be quashed and they be directed to allot and Transfer Government built property flat No. 42, Khan Market, New Delhi, in his favour. The facts relied upon by him in support thereof may briefly be narrated as here under. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, a displaced person from West Pakistan, on migration to India was allotted tented accommodation in Harding Avenue, New Delhi, on 5th June, 1948, and for this he deposited Rs. 150. 00as security with the Cashier, Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Annexure A ). Subsequently on his application he was allotted shop N 0. 42; Khan Market, New Delhi, on 9th January, 1952. He then moved the Department to allot him flat No. 42 just above the shop for his residence. This had previously been allotted to another displaced person who was occupying at the time a spacious building in Karol Bagh, New Delhi. He allowed the petitioner to occupy the flat in anticipation of Government permission. The petitioner informed the Delhi State about his occupying the said flat. The tented accommodation which was with him since 5th June, 1948, was vacated by him on 8th May 1952. He is an ex-service Officer and on that score in the month of July,1953 the Resettlement Section of the Ministry of Defence allotted him a vacant piece of land in the Defence colony. Thereafter the Housing and Rent Officer, Delhi, directed him to appear before the Multiple Allotment and subletting Board on 9th October, 1953, which he did (Annexure D. ). His explanation that the tented accommodation had already been vacated by him satisfied Shri Shiv Charan Gupta, Chairman of the Board, who asked him to produce (1) receipt No. 24, book No. 7320, issued by New Delhi Municipal Committee for security deposit for electrification of flat No. 42. and (2) letter showing that tent No. 43, Harding Avenue, had been vacated by him (Annexure E ). This letter was duly complied with and a cheque for Rs. 300. and (2) letter showing that tent No. 43, Harding Avenue, had been vacated by him (Annexure E ). This letter was duly complied with and a cheque for Rs. 300. 00 was also sent by the petitioner to the Housing and Rent Officer, Delhi, towards the rent account of flat No. 42 (Annexure F ). ( 3 ) THE Secretary, Relief and Rehabilitation Department of the erstwhile Delhi State, in the year 1955 issued instructions to the authorities to regularise unauthortised occupations of persons who had been in possession of premises prior to 1st April, 1954. The instructions were published in the press (Annexure G ). The Minister for Rehabilitation, Delhi State, in pursuance of these instructions, on 25th July, 1956, regularly allotted flat No. 42 in favour of the petitioner. He was also advised not to give up his plot situate in the Defence Colony because the Minister recommended his case for the grant of a loan to build his bungalow and that as long as no building was constructed on it, that could not constitute multiple allotment. At the same time the Minister directed him to pay Rs. 500. 00 as rent of flat No. 42 Khan Market, to the Housing and Rent Officer, Delhi which he readily paid and obtained receipt (Annexure H ). In spite of this the Housing and Rent Officer, Delhi, by his letter dated 18th December, 1956, directed him to vacate flat No. 42 on 24th January, 1957. Thereupon he informed the Housing and Rent Officer and Dr. Yudhvir Singh, the erstwhile Minister for Rehabilitation, Delhi State, that he would like to surrender his plot in the Defence Colony. In the meantime he received another communication dated 6th March, 1957, from Kanwar Gajendra Singh, Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, on behalf of the Government of India, that he would not be allowed to keep flat No. 42 because he had already been allotted a plot of land in the Defence Colony (Annexure J ). He soon after represented to the author of the above letter that he was prepared to surrender his plot in the Defence Colony when he was asked to produce a surrender certificate so that further action Could be taken on his request for regularising his occupation of flat No. 42. He soon after represented to the author of the above letter that he was prepared to surrender his plot in the Defence Colony when he was asked to produce a surrender certificate so that further action Could be taken on his request for regularising his occupation of flat No. 42. The petitioner obtained the necessary surrender certificate from the Resettlement Section of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India (Annexure 1) on 28th March, 1958, and sent it to Shri M. R. Vaid, Housing and Rent Officer, Delhi, by his covering letter dated 29th March, 1957 (Annexure K), a copy of which was forwarded to Kanwar Gajendra Singh, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation. The petitioner was allowed to occupy the flat till 25th July, 1957, vide Government of India letter dated 18th April, 195 7 (Annexure M ). Curiously enough even before the expiry of the date to which he had been allowed to occupy the flat a notice was pasted on the premises on 12th June, 1957, to vacate the permises within ten days. This notice was issued under section 3 of the Government Premises Eviction Act. The petitioner successfully lodged a writpetition under Article 226 of the Constitution for -quashing order. The Additional Settlement Commissioner (Sales) withdrew the above notice dated 10th June, 1957 (Annexure N ). The petitioner again was served with a notice dated 7th December, 1958, under section 19 of the Displaced persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. (Hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Act) by the Managing Officer on 16th January, 1959. The petitioner moved for the cancellation of the notice when he was informed by the Managing Officer by his letter dated 21st February, 1959, that his possession of flat No. 42 could not be regularised. Anappeal against this order was dismissed by Shri L. B. Mathur, Settlement Commissioner (G. B. P.) Jamnagar House, New Delhi, on 15th July, 1959. His revision petition was rejected by Shri G. B. Lalvani, Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 19th March, 1960 (Annexure P ). He moved the Central Government for setting aside of the order (Annexure P) under section 33 of the Act but without success. His revision petition was rejected by Shri G. B. Lalvani, Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 19th March, 1960 (Annexure P ). He moved the Central Government for setting aside of the order (Annexure P) under section 33 of the Act but without success. A copy of the order rejecting his representation is Annexure Q. The petitioner contends that the impugned orders passed by the various officers were illegal, Malacious, ultra vires and thus were not enforceable mainly on the grounds as reproduced below :- (I) That the Rehabilitation Department of the Delhi State had issued a Press Note No. F. 1 (1)/55/rra whereby all unauthoritised occupants who had occupied property before 1st April, 1954, were permitted to have their occupations regularised. If the Petitioner may in any case be deemed to be an nnauthorised occupant (which is denied) he was also entitled to get the benefit to the Press Note and to get his allotment regularised. The refusal of the Department to regularise the allotment in favour of the petitioner contravenes the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed to him under Article 14 of the Constitution. (ii) That the refusal to allot contravenes Article 19 of the Constitution as the petitioner has an interest in the property as a tenant. (iii) That the Chief Settlement Commissioner had not properly appreciated the significance of the surrender certificate which had been produced by the petitioner in respect of the plot of land in Kilokri allotted to him under the orders of the Settlement authorities. The Chief Settlement Commissioner was wrong when he held that this surrender was without any assurance of allotment. Nobody could surrender such a valuable plot unless the assurance had been given. (iv) That is a result of the Press Note REFERRED TO above, there was many authorised occupants of flats in Khan Market but with the exception of the petitioner s case, all others were regularised. The petitioner s case now stands as the only one out of the seventy-two which has not yet been regularised. (v) That the price of the said property is under Rs. 10,000. 00 and the petitioner had received an intimation calling upon him to make deposit of the first instalment so that the property may be transferred to his name permanently. (v) That the price of the said property is under Rs. 10,000. 00 and the petitioner had received an intimation calling upon him to make deposit of the first instalment so that the property may be transferred to his name permanently. Subsequently when the petitioner went to make payment of the first instalment, it was not accepted. The pon-allotment of the flat to the petitioner is against the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. (vi) That the malice of the Department is clear from the fact that a personal letter received by the petitioner from Kanwar Gajendra Singh wherein an offer of 800 sq. yards in Najafgarh area was made to bun and which letter was Counter-signed by Shri L. J. Johnson, I. C. S. Chief Settlement Commissioner, himself, was completely ignored. This letter is at Annexure s . (vii) That the petitioner has not other residential accomodation allotted to him by the Ministry of Rehabilitation and the Defence Colony plot has also been taken away from him. He has also paid rent for the flat for 2 years. The petitioner has effected improvements in the flat in the reasonable hope that after the surrender of the Defence Colony plot, the flat would be transferred to him. (viii) That if an allotment in Najafgarh area had been made in accordance with the Commitments of the respondents, the petitioner would have by now constructed his own premises there and would have had no need for this flat. The other grounds mentioned by him in the writ petition were not pressed at the time of arguments and so those have not been noticed Here. ( 4 ) THE respondents in their written statement pleaded that flat No. 42 was allotted to Shri Ajit Singh Johar on 6tb December, 1951, whose allotment later on was cancelled on 30th May, 1952, as he failed to take possession thereof. Subsequently, it was reallotted to Dr. Harbhajan Singh. The petitioner appeared to have taken possession of the same without permission of Dr. Harbhajan Singh. He, therefore, cannot be said to be in an authorised possession of it. They admitted that the press note REFERRED TO in the petition was issued by the Delhi State Government but added that the facilities provided therein were extended by way of concession and so did not confer any right on the petitioner. Harbhajan Singh. He, therefore, cannot be said to be in an authorised possession of it. They admitted that the press note REFERRED TO in the petition was issued by the Delhi State Government but added that the facilities provided therein were extended by way of concession and so did not confer any right on the petitioner. According to them the petitioner was given temporary allotment of the flat for a period of more than one year which expired on 24th January, 1957. Their main emphasis was that since the petitioner had also obtained a vacant site in the Defence Colony for building a resdential house, he could not have claimed the flat as well as of right and so his unauthorised occupation of it could not have been regularised occupation of it could not have been regularised. It was also admitted by them that at one time the petitioner was offered 800 sq. Yards of land in the Industrial Colony but the offar was not honoured for reasons not patent co. the record. They maintained that the petitioner was neither the allottee nor tenant of the flat and as such he was liable to be evicted therefromunder the provisions of the Act as the property formed part of the compensation pool. It was, however, admitted that the petitioner after his surrender of the vacant site had no other residential accommodation allotted to him by the Ministry of Rehabilitation. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner in order to show that the petitioner enjoyed a right to get his unauthorised occupation of the flat regularised relied on the Government directions as given in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the press note (Annexure G) which run as : "5. It has also been brought to the notice of the Government that many houses/tenements shops allotted on rental basis have occupied by unauthorised parsons who have obtained the accommodation from the original allottees or otherwise. It has been decided in consultation with the Central Minisitry of Rehabilitation to regularise the occupation of all those who came into possession of the properties before 1st April, 1954, provided they pay to the Housing and Rent Officer the entire arrears of rent due in respect of the accommodation in their possession. Occupants having verified claims will be gived the facilities of adjusting the arrears of rent under the interim Compensation Scheme. Occupants having verified claims will be gived the facilities of adjusting the arrears of rent under the interim Compensation Scheme. ( 6 ) ALL unauthorised occupants who have occupied properties before 1st April 1954 can now have their occupation regularised, provided they clear off the arrears of rent as mentioned above. They should apply to the Housing and Rent Officer, Delhi by 1st September 1955. Those who fail to have their occupation regularised by the September 1955 and those who unauthorisedly accupied Government properties on or after 1st April 1954 will be liable to eviction and other penalties according to law. " According to the learned counsel these instructions were issued by the Government under sub-section (1) of sections 16 of the Act which is in the following terms : "16. (1) The Central Government may take such measures as it considers necessary or expedient for the custody, management and disposal of the compensation pool in order that it may be effective utilised in accordance with the provisions of this Act. "the directions relied upon by the petitioner indeed fall within the ambit of the above provisions of law because these relate to the custody and management of the compensation pool. The learned counsel for the respondents contended to the contrary and relied on the cases,, (l) Ram Nath v. Central Government and (2) Bishan Singh v. The Central Government. In both these cases certain press notes issued by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, were held as invalid as those related to the transfer of urban agricultural land and other property forming part of compensation pool because such transfers could have been effected under the statutory rules framed in persuance of powers conferred on the Central Government by virtue of section 8 and 40 of the Act. Section 8 of the act lays down that a displaced person shall be paid out of the compensation pool the amount of net compensation determined under sub-section (3) of section 7 as being payable to him and subject to rules that may be made under this Act. The Settlement Commissioner or may other officer or authority authorised by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in this behalf was empowered to make such payment in any one of the forms mentioned in the section or partly in one and partly in any other form. The Settlement Commissioner or may other officer or authority authorised by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in this behalf was empowered to make such payment in any one of the forms mentioned in the section or partly in one and partly in any other form. The forms in which such payments are to be made need not be stated here because the same are not signficant for our purpose This section in so many words enjoins that compensation is to be paid out of the compensation pool subject to any rules prescribed under the Act. Section 40 of the Act gives powers in general to the Central Government for framing rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. No such limitation is placed on the powers of the Central Government to issue directions for day-to-day management of the property forming compensation pool. In terms of section 16 such directions which are considered necessary or expedient for the custody and management of the compensation pool can be issued by the Central Government and the directions embodied in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the above press note fall under this category and thus have the force of law for the purpose of article 13 (3) (a) of the constitution wherein it is mentioned : 13. (3) (A) "law" includes any Ordinance order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law. "the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the respondents were bound to carry out the directions given in the Press Note, i. e. , the so-called an authorised occupation of flat No. 42 by the petitioner was to be regularised on his payment of arrears of rent up to date because he came to occupy the same before 1st April, 1954. There is considerable force in what he maintained. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand mentioned that since the petitioner was in occupation of a vacant site in the Defence Colony his pocession over the flat in question could not have, been regularised. There is no direction in the press note that if an unauthorised occupant is in pocession of a vacant site elsewhere his occupation should not be regularised even if he came into possession of the property before 1st April, 1954, and also pays the arrears of rent due from him. There is no direction in the press note that if an unauthorised occupant is in pocession of a vacant site elsewhere his occupation should not be regularised even if he came into possession of the property before 1st April, 1954, and also pays the arrears of rent due from him. If for arguments sake it may be conceded that such a condition was necessary then even the petitioner fulfilled all the qualifications which were necessary for him to get his occupation regularised on 28th March, 1957, when he surrendered the plot allotted to him by the Resettlement Section of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. The learned counsel for the respondents admitted that unauthorised occupation of certain residents of some others flats in the Khan Market were regularised in 1961 and 1962. No reason has been shown as to why the petitioner was singled out and his occupation of flat No. 42 was not regularised. Strangely enough the Ministry of Rehabilitation once purposed to allot him plots Nos. 1 and 2, each approximately 400 sq. yards in area, in the Industrial Colony at Najafgarh to secure his eviction from flat No. 42 but were not prepared to regularise his occupation of it even though under the law he was fully entitled to the same. The petitioner fulfilled all the conditions laid down in the press note for regularisation of his occupation of the flat. Therefore, the respondents were not justified in considering him as an unauthorised occupant thereof and ordering his ejectment thereform under the provisions of the Act. ( 7 ) FOR the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders not being in conformity with law are quashed. The respondent on payment of arrerrs of rent by the petitioner will regularise his occupation of the flat in dispute. Thereafter his prayer for permanent transfer of this flat in his favour should be considered according to law. The Petitioner will get costs of these proceedings.