ORDER R. Bhattacharya.—This revision petition filed by Shri Udami Ram son of Sh. Samu Ram, Fine Tailors, opposite Deepak Bhojnalya, 10/6, Middle Bazar, Shimla is directed against the order dated 22.4.1993 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla in Revision Appeal No. 130/90 by which the appeal of the present petitioner was dismissed by him by confirming the order of the Settlement Collector Shimla. 2. The salient facts leading the litigation upto this stage be noticed first. One Maulvi Sayeed Abdullah owned and possessed land and Kothi measuring 79680 Sq. feet bearing Khasra No. 591 in Bazar Ward Bara Shimla. After partition of the country Maulvi Sayeed Abdullah left the country and migrated to Pakistan and resultantly the property was declared evacuee property. Khasra No. 591/1 measuring 2534 Sq. Yards was auctioned publically on 9.9.1957 and Sh. Kartar Singh Duggal son of Sh. Kalyan Singh Duggal as a displaced person from Pakistan purchased the land by making the highest bid. The bid was accepted by the Regional Settlement Commissioner on 4.12.1957. The amount of consideration was partly paid by the purchaser out of the settlement claims of the displaced person and the balance amount was deposited by the legal heirs of Sh. Kartar Singh Duggal, who died during the intervening period. The sale certificate was finally issued to the legal representatives of late Sh. Kartar Singh Duggai on 2.9.1987 by the Sales-cum-Managing Officer (R&R) Shimla. Sh. Udami Ram the present petitioner has also been claiming the ownership of this property on the basis of a Will executed by one Sh. Bhagat Ram in favour of petitioner and his sisters Parvati Devi and Budhi Devi, who have relinquished their share in favour of the petitioner. The locus-standi of the testator Bhagat Ram is not known. But however it is pertinent to take note at this stage that the said Bhagat Ram participated in the auction of the property during 1957 and offered to purchase the same at a consideration of Rs. 5,500/- which offer was rejected in the face of higher bid by the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent No. 1 subsequently. In any case, the present petitioner got the entry made in his name on 4.4.1989 and 20.4.1989 in the revenue record on the basis of the purported Will by virtue of the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Settlement. 3. In any case, the present petitioner got the entry made in his name on 4.4.1989 and 20.4.1989 in the revenue record on the basis of the purported Will by virtue of the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Settlement. 3. These orders were challenged in appeal by the present respondent No. 1 before Collector, Settlement Shimla who accepted the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector vide his orders dated 9.5.1990. Aggrieved therewith the present petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner Shimla who dismissed the same by passing the impugned order thus giving rise to the present petition preferred by the petitioner almost on identical grounds. At this stage it is relevant to take note of the fact that during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court the present petitioner Sh. Udami Ram produced another oral Will (Wasiat Nama Jabani as recorded and described in order dated 16.11.1993 of the Assistant Collector Settlement) Purportedly made by Mohammad Sayeed Abdullah in the name of Bhagat Ram, who is stated to be related to the present petitioner as the husband of his mothers sister. It is also profitable to take note of the fact that the said Bhagat Ram had already executed a Will in favour of the present petitioner alongwith his sisters. 4. The grounds taken in the revision petition are that the impugned order is not maintainable as being against law and facts. The orders of the Settlement Collector by which the orders of Assistant Collector were set-aside has been opposed as time barred. On merits, the order has been challenged on the question of title, which according to petitioner, the respondent does not possess. 5. The matter has been heard at length through the learned Counsels of both the parties. Respondent No. 2 appeared in person alongwith the District Attorney (Rev). The record of the case available on the case file of the lower Courts have been scrutinised. 6. I have considered the arguments adduced at the bar by the learned Counsels. The first point that falls for determination, as pleaded, is whether the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Settlement Collector was barred by the limitation. The record of the case available on the case file of the lower Courts have been scrutinised. 6. I have considered the arguments adduced at the bar by the learned Counsels. The first point that falls for determination, as pleaded, is whether the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Settlement Collector was barred by the limitation. The scrutiny of the record reveals that the original orders were passed by the Assistant Collector on 20.4.1989 and appeal against these orders was preferred by respondent No. 1 on 7.3.1990 before Settlement Collector Shimla. Apparently the appeal was barred by limitation. But the memorandum of appeal filed before the Settlement Collector was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act alongwith an affidavit sworn by the respondent No. 1 for condonation of delay explaining therein the causes for delay in filing the appeal. The application was considered by the Settlement Collector and allowed the application vide his orders dated 21.3.1990. Since the order passed by the Revenue Officer of the first instance was passed in the absence of the respondent No. 1, that too when he (respondent) had applied for entering and passing of mutation in terms of the certificate of sale, therefore view taken by the Settlement Collector in entertaining the appeal within limitation after acquisition of knowledge about the orders, is legal and just. The petitioner has not set forth any reason or ground on the basis of which knowledge can be imputed to respondent No. 1. In view of the discussion the contention lacks any force and is accordingly rejected. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further argues, though vaguely that respondent No. 1 has no title of the property in dispute. No reason whatsoever has been stated to substantiate the plea. On the other hand the plea has been opposed by the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. On the basis of sale certificate issued by the Sales Department, the custodian of Evacuee properties in his favour. The Custodian Department represented by the District Attorney (Revenue) has stated that the land in question was duly auctioned and was purchased in an open bid by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 1 and the sale certificate has also been issued. The plea of the petitioner, therefore, is bereft of any merit and deserve to be dismissed. The Custodian Department represented by the District Attorney (Revenue) has stated that the land in question was duly auctioned and was purchased in an open bid by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 1 and the sale certificate has also been issued. The plea of the petitioner, therefore, is bereft of any merit and deserve to be dismissed. Rather the petitioner has been making claim after claim to acquire the property in question. It has been stated at the bar that the petitioner has produced yet another oral Will purported to be scribbled in favour of the one Bhagat Ram by Mohammad Sayeed Abdullah and the present petitioner claims the succession of Sh. Bhagat Ram through the impugned Will. This Bhagat Ram is the same person who is stated to be participating in the auction of the said property by the custodian Department and at a point of time in 1957 had applied for purchase of the same at a consideration of Rs. 5,500/- which afterwards was rejected. Had Sh. Bhagat Ram been in possession of some Will executed in his favour by the original owner there was no occasion for him to participate in the auction and applying for the purchase of the property. The said oral Will is stated to have surfaced in the year 1993 and so much so that a mutation has also been attested on the basis of this Will by the Assistant Collector vide his orders dated 16.11.1993, during the pendency of this revision petition in this Court. Under these circumstances I am unable to agree to the proceedings drawn in this manner without informing the respondents and have no alternative but to confirm the quashing of orders dated 4.4.1989 and 20.4.1989 by the Settlement Collector Shimla. Needless to say that order dated 16.11.1993 passed subsequently with regard to the same property during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court also falls and is set aside. The respondent is a successor in interest of a displaced person from West Pakistan and has not been settled till date on the land and property allotted to him out of the compensation pool as an evacuee property even after the lapse of number of years. The respondent is a successor in interest of a displaced person from West Pakistan and has not been settled till date on the land and property allotted to him out of the compensation pool as an evacuee property even after the lapse of number of years. The property in question is an evacuee property and has been duly allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 1 through open auction as a displaced person partly against his settlement claims. Consequently orders passed by Assistant Collector dated 4.4.1989, 20.4.1989 and 16.11.1993 are quashed. There is no infirmity in the orders passed by Settlement Collector and the learned Divisional Commissioner Shimla that calls for any interference. Resultantly the revision petition is dismissed and the Assistant Collector is directed to attest the mutation afresh in view of the directions aforementioned. 8. Resultantly the revision petition fails and is dismissed. 9. Orders be communicated to the parties and file be consigned to record room after due completion. Revision dismissed.