CHARANJIT TALWAR, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition Shri Bhupinder Singh challenges the legality of the order dt. 7th June, 1971 passed by the Appellate Officer appointed under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner herein under S. 15 of me Act was dismissed ( 2 ) IT appears from the impugned judgment that 1/3rd portion of property No. XV/5484 (new)/7282 to 85 (old ). Mohalla Shora Kothi, Pahar Ganj. New Delhi was allotted to one Atma Ram. As The property had been treated as composite property, the Competent Officer under the Act vide his order passed on 7th Apr. 1959 ordered the transfer of 1/3rd share in the property at the assessed value to Shri Atma Ram as a sitting allottee. This order was confirmed on 28th May, 1959. Shri Atma Ram died sometime in the year 1960. In the proceedings for the substitution of his legal representatives the petitioner herein sought that the sale certificate ought to have been issued in the year 1959 jointly in the name of the said Atma Ram and that the property in question had been allotted and transferred to Atma Ram on the basis of the strength of the family members including himself. It further appears that evidence was summoned on asking of the petitioner by the Competent Officer, Delhi in support of the plea. One of the witnesses summoned by the petitioner had not appeared before the Competent Officer in spite of service. The Competent Authority vide order dt. 21st Dec. 1970 dispensed with the evidence of that witness as it was of the opinion that deposition of that witness had become redunadant. A copy of that order has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-A, It is a short order and it reads as follows : "order The witness was summoned to appear today to give evidence on behalf of Sh. Bhupinder Singh. In spite of service the witness has not turned up today. This witness has been summoned by Sh. A copy of that order has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-A, It is a short order and it reads as follows : "order The witness was summoned to appear today to give evidence on behalf of Sh. Bhupinder Singh. In spite of service the witness has not turned up today. This witness has been summoned by Sh. Bhupinder Singh along with the record to prove the allotment of property to Atma Ram on the strength of the family members, In my opinion the deposition of the evidence of this witness is redundant in view of the fact that the point at issue is the appointment of legal heirs of the deceased Atma Ram and not the question of allotment of the property to Shri Atma Ram. I, therefore, dispense with the evidence of the said witness and direct the parties to argue in the matter. Sd/- B. S. Kinger, Competent Officer, Delhi. Dt. 21-12-70. " ( 3 ) THIS was one of the orders which was challenged before the Appellate Officer. The plea of the petitioner that he had lived in tfae said house of Shri Atma Ram and as such his name ought to be included in the sale certificate was sought to be proved through thwitness who had been summoned. The Appellate Officer as well as the Competent Officer have held that the question raised before them was not whether allotment was made to Atma Ram on the basis of family strength. The finding of fact is that Shri Atma Ram alone was treated as an allottee and 1/3rd share in the property was ordered to be transferred in his favour only. It has been further held that the plea urged in the proceedings for substitution of Atma Ram s legal representatives was not open to the petitioner at that stage after a lapse of over 11 years of the allotment to Shri Atma Ram. ( 4 ) IN my view, the authorities below have acted within their discretion in not permitting the appellant to bring on record the evidence which was not necessary for the decision of the questions involved in the substitution proceedings. I see no infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of merit. It is dismissed. No order as to costs.