Mr. P. N. Nag, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the quashing of (i)order dated 26. 5. 1972 passed by Shri S. R. Kapoor, Authorised Chiefsettlement Commissioner, New Delhi and (Annexure 6 to the writ petition)and (ii) order dated 24. 7. 1974 passed by Shri Gulab L. Ajwani, Deputychief Settlement Commissioner/officer with delegated powers of Centralgovernment, whereby the claim of the petitioner for adjusting the amountagainst the price of the property allotted to him for his prior association ofcompensation of one Mr. Brahma Nand, claimant, has been ignored. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts briefly are that the petitioner was allottedproperty No. XIV/8051 (New ). He was held eligible to the transfer ofthis property as a non-claimant and he deposited Rs. 2. 804. 00 representing20^ of the price on 9. 7. 1959, the price of the property being Rs. 14. 016. 00 Heassociated the compensation of one Shri Brahma Nand claimant in C. A. F. No. RG/9,5/b/sholapur/178 towards the balance cost of the property to theextent of Rs. 11. 212. 00 and filed association papers and other requisite documents. The said claimant associate Brahma Nand also associated withmohd. Usman for payment of the balance price towards property No. XIV/8046. The amount payable to the claimant associate against Statementof Account issued to him was Rs. 17,280. 00. While processing the C. A. F. the Regional Settlement Commissioner. Bombay adjusted Rs. 10,344. 56towards R. F. A. loan due from one Shri Hasomal Ladharam for whom, theclaimant associate stood surety/guarantor. He further adjusted Rs. 6,068. 00towards balance price of property No. XIV/8046 purchased by Shri Mohd. Usman and the balance of Rs. 867. 44 was adjusted towards the balanceprice of the property No. XIV/8051 purchased bv the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against this processing of the C. A. F. of the claimantassociate which was dismissed vide order dated 26. 5. 1972 (Annexure 6 ). Against the dismissal of the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner filed a revisionwhich was also dismissed vide order dated 24. 7. 1974 (Annexure 8 ). Againstthe dismissal of the appeal and revision, the present petition has beenfiled. 5. 1972 (Annexure 6 ). Against the dismissal of the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner filed a revisionwhich was also dismissed vide order dated 24. 7. 1974 (Annexure 8 ). Againstthe dismissal of the appeal and revision, the present petition has beenfiled. ( 3 ) BOTH the authorities below have held that it cannot be held thatthe association papers of the petitioner had been tendered prior to theassociation papers tendered by respondent No. 6 and therefore, those papersshould have been given preference. It has further been held that theamount of R. F. A. loan due from Shri Hassomal Ladharam had beencorrectly recovered/adjusted from the compensation payable to his suretyshri Brahma Nand, respondent No. 5. ( 4 ) MR. Ramesh Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner,vehemently contested the findings given by both the authorities below. According to him there is no categoric finding given by them that theassociation papers of the petitioner had not been tendered prior to theassociation papers tendered by respondent No. 6, in the absence of which,such finding requires to be set aside. Further, according to him, the amountof R. F. A. loan due from Shri Hassomal Ladhram was not a public due and,therefore, it cannot be recovered and adjusted from the compensationpayable to his surety Shri Brahma Nand, respondent No. 5. ( 5 ) I have carefully gone through the judgments of the authoritiesbelow and am of the view that they have scrutinised the materials availableon record and they have come to a correct finding which cannot be termedas perverse as no reasonable man can reach such a conclusion. On theother hand, I find there is no error apparent on the face of the record andno interference is called for. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, having regard to the fact that the property was allottedto the petitioner some where in 1959 and he has also paid a part of the amount and there is a serious dispute of the balance amount payable anddue from the petitioner, which is the subject-matter of litigation for long,it would be highly unjust and unequitable to dispossess him at this stage and cancel his allotment. In case the impugned orders are upheld, the petitioner is liable to pay the balance amount in accordance with the aforementioned orders, which, according to Mr. Ramesh Chandra, after adjustment comes to Rs. 10,444. 56 only. In case the impugned orders are upheld, the petitioner is liable to pay the balance amount in accordance with the aforementioned orders, which, according to Mr. Ramesh Chandra, after adjustment comes to Rs. 10,444. 56 only. This amount, however, will be subject to verification by the Department after proper adjustment of the amount as ordered by the authorities below. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, in those peculiar circumstances, I direct the respondents 1 to 4 will verify the amount payable by the petitioner in accordance with the impugned orders passed by them and communicate the same to the petitioner within two months from today and on receipt of the communication of the amount payable, the petitioner shall pay the balance amount within four months thereafter. On such payments being made within the stipulated period, the allotment of the property made to the petitioner shall not be cancelled and he shall not be dispossessed. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.