ORDER Bhagat Singh, FC. - This revision petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Act, 1954, is directed against the order dated 25.3.1994 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-chief Settlement Commissioner, Gurdaspur. 2. The facts as made out from the file are that allotment of land measuring 16 kanals comprised in Rect. No. 86, killa No. 1(8-0) and 10(8-0) situated in Batala Sharki to Amar Singh son of Mal Singh was cancelled on 13.12.1967. This piece of land, alongwith some other land was allotted to Gurdial Singh, petitioner on 28.10.1981 to satisfy his claim. Vide order dated 9.2.1987 the said land was restored to Amar Singh. It was also found that he was entitled to additional land measuring 4 SAs 3 units in the same village or in some nearby village subject to availability of the area. However, Tehsildar Sales, Batala failed to comply with this order dated 9.2.1987. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed an application dated 12.9.1991 to the Tehsildar (Sales), Batala who referred the case for the allotment of 8 kanals 8 marlas of land to the Rehabilitation Authorities (Headquarter). The claim was accepted on 2.1.1992 which was conveyed on 7.1.1992 to the Tehsildar (Sales), Batala. In compliance with this order, land measuring 10 kanals 1 marla was allotted to the petitioner vide order dated 17.1.1992. Narinder Singh and Mohinder Singh sons of Amar Singh filed a complaint dated 3.1.94, on the ground that in lieu of the land abandoned by their father in Pakistan, land was to be allotted to them after applying 12-1/2% cut. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) made an enquiry and requested on 22.11.93 the Rehabilitation Department to make a suo-moto reference to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Gurdaspur to set aside the allotment order dated 17.1.1992. The respondents also filed an appeal under section 22 of the Displaced persons (C&R) Act, 1954 before the Settlement Commissioner, Batala which was dismissed on 5.3.1992. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Gurdaspur received the suo-moto reference and cancelled the allotment of land made to Sh. Gurdial Singh vide his order dated 25.3.1994. Hence this revision petition. 3. The counsel for the petitioner argued that Sh. Gurdial Singh is a displaced person from Pakistan where he abandoned land in district Layalpur. He was allotted land measuring 15 S.As. 11 units on 28.10.1981, in Batala Sharki. Gurdial Singh vide his order dated 25.3.1994. Hence this revision petition. 3. The counsel for the petitioner argued that Sh. Gurdial Singh is a displaced person from Pakistan where he abandoned land in district Layalpur. He was allotted land measuring 15 S.As. 11 units on 28.10.1981, in Batala Sharki. Later on land measuring 2 S.As was cancelled and restored to Sh. Amar Singh. The petitioner was ordered to be allotted alternative and area. He applied for allotment of 2 S.As. on 12.9.91 and the Tehsildar allotted 10 acres 1 kanal in Batala Gharbi on 17.1.1992. He has been possession of land in dispute since 17.1.1992. The proprietary rights have already been conferred on 11.7.1992. The appeal of the respondents No. 3 and 4 was dismissed on 5.3.92 by the Settlement Commissioner finding that they did not move any application for the allotment of the land on the basis of the order dated 9.2.1987 conveyed by the Reh. Department (H.Q.). They filed a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Gurdaspur which was dismissed in default on 16.8.93. No application for restoration was made by them. According to Section 27 of the DP (C&R) Act, 1954 the order dated 17.1.1992 had specifically attained finality. Thereafter, the respondents made a complaint against these orders. An enquiry was held by the SDO (C) who sent a report to Reh. Department to move a suo-moto reference to CSC, Gurdaspur which was accepted by him and the allotment of the petitioner was cancelled on 25.3.94. 4. The counsel contended that if through any material irregularity or fraud, the allotment was sought, the same could be cancelled at any time under Section 2 of Section 24 of the DP (C&R) Act, 1954. But the CSC has found nothing against the petitioner and has over-stepped his jurisdiction in quashing the order of allotment to petitioner. No efforts have been made by the respondents to have the revision petition restored before the CSC. Moreover, impugned order cannot be reviewed or passed when the Deputy Secretary, Reh. Deptt. had also used the same powers of the CSC by accepting the claim of the petitioner vide his order dated 2.1.1992 and conveyed to the Tehsildar on 7.1.92. The impugned order is hit by the ratio of Full Bench judgement of Honble High Court reported ias 1964-PLR-318. Deptt. had also used the same powers of the CSC by accepting the claim of the petitioner vide his order dated 2.1.1992 and conveyed to the Tehsildar on 7.1.92. The impugned order is hit by the ratio of Full Bench judgement of Honble High Court reported ias 1964-PLR-318. The record reveals that the petitioner filed an application on 12.9.1991 and the respondents filed their application on 5.1.1992. So the Tehsildar (Sales) applied the principle of "First come first served". Even in this case the principle of res judicata also applies as when the Settlement Commissioner had dismissed the appeal and the CSC had also dismissed the revision petition in default, the respondents could not adopt another way i.e. filing complaint etc. The respondents could not claim that a particular piece of land be allotted to them, as it is settled law as reported in 1973-PLJ-183 and 1973-PLJ-398 that "an unsatisfied claimant, has no right to choose a particular property to be allotted to him." The CSC, in his impugned order had taken the point of favouritism to Gurdial Singh as he was a Kannugo in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. In this respect, the counsel averred that Gurdial Singh was a Kannugo Sales but retired in the year 1976 whereas he got the land in due course and much after his retirement. Once the allotment is made with the approval of the higher authorities, the property/land is treated excluded from the compensation pool. The counsel urged, therefore, to set aside the order of the CSC and restore the order of Settlement Commissioner by accepting the revision petition. 5. Sh. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate appeared on behalf of the vendees and submitted that since the petitioner was recorded as owner in the revenue record, he sold land measuring 5 kanals 13 marlas to the vendees vide registered sale deed dated 27.10.1992 for a valuable consideration. The vendors purchased the land after proper verification in respect of title of the petitioner. Therefore, being bonafide purchasers their rights are protected under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. In this respect the counsel referred to 1978-PLJ-47 and averred that it had been held by the Honble High Court that even if the allotment is to be cancelled, the transferees should not be dispossessed because the transferee purchased the land after due diligence and since there was restriction on alienation, as such. In this respect the counsel referred to 1978-PLJ-47 and averred that it had been held by the Honble High Court that even if the allotment is to be cancelled, the transferees should not be dispossessed because the transferee purchased the land after due diligence and since there was restriction on alienation, as such. The transferee should not be made to suffer. The counsel urged to protect the interest of the vendees. Sh. Baljinder Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of some vendees and supported these arguments. 6. On behalf of the respondents Sh. Arjan Singh submitted that Sh. Amar Singh (deceased), father/grandfather of the respondents was allotted 4 S.As. 3 units (Addl.) alongwith 2-1-1/2 S.A which was cancelled earlier, in Batala sub-urban area vide letter No. 926-30/Tehsildar-M.O. dated 9.2.1987. However, later on Reh. Deptt. issued another letter dated 7.1.1992 directing the Tehsildar to allot the land in dispute to the petitioner. The Tehsildar complied with the order dated 7.1.92 within 10 days and allotted land on 17.1.1992 by ignoring the order dated 9.2.1987. As the petitioner had himself served as Kannugo in the office of Deputy Commissioner the office kept the Tehsildar in dark. The counsel averred that the dismissal of appeal by the Settlement Commissioner or the dismissal in default of revision petition did not debar the CSC from accepting the reference. The respondents made repeatted requests but land was not allotted. Thereafter, an application dated 5.1.92 was re-submitted which was forwarded to the Deputy Secretary to Government Punjab Reh. Department, Chandigarh on 22.1.92 for necessary orders. After a thorough inquiry, Government sent a suo-moto reference to D.C.-cum-CSC, Gurdaspur who accepted the reference and cancelled the illegal allotment vide his order dated 25.3.1994. The revenue authority did not give effect to the cancellation order in the revenue record for three years. This helped the ex-allottees family to sell the cancelled land to some on else on 28.7.97 inspite of the stay order dated 29.6.94 passed by FCR, Punjab. 7. The counsel further contended that parchi allotment dated 17.1.1992 is available in the record at pages 41-43 of the file of the Tehsildar. The report of the Kannugo dated 6.3.1992 regarding delivery of possession and Regd. Sale deed of the same date in favour o Pritam Singh son of Kapur Singh is available in the record at pages 71-73 with petition. The report of the Kannugo dated 6.3.1992 regarding delivery of possession and Regd. Sale deed of the same date in favour o Pritam Singh son of Kapur Singh is available in the record at pages 71-73 with petition. According to the registered sale deed, land meaning 4 kanals 2 marlas is "gair mumkin chhapper". It is very strange that after the sale of land on 6.3.1992, the property rights were given to the allottee on 11.3.1992. The counsel brought into my notice that. "Gift, Sale or will of land by a displaced person to whom it is allotted on a quasi-permanent basis is void as it is prohibited under Section 10 of the East Punjab Evacuee (Admn. of Property) Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)" (AIR-1971-P&H High Court-256). The counsel further averred that the other land which also stood cancelled on 25.3.1994 by the CSC has also been sold vide registered sale dated 28.7.1997 to Malak Singh etc. The copy of registration deed is available in record. 8. the counsel pointed out that the respondents filed an application dated 5.1.1992 for the allotment of land on the basis of order dated 9.2.1987. But the Tehsildar kept the same with him and forwarded it to the Reh. Deptt. only on 22.1.1992 after the allotment of land to Gurdial Singh, petitioner on 17.1.1992. Still no action had been taken on this application. In this case, the Tehsildar has applied the policy of "pick and choose". No principle of res judicata is applicable. The CSC found the mischief in the allotment of land. So he cancelled the same vide his order dated 25.3.1994. Being devoid of any merits, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. The counsel for the petitioner rebutted these arguments stating that in the impugned orders it has been wrongly mentioned that any favour to the petitioner had been made as he served as a Kannugo in the office of the D.C. earlier. This point was not taken before the Settlement Commissioner before he had passed the order dated 5.3.1992. Gurdial Singh retired in the year 1976 and land was allotted against the claim on 28.10.1981 in due course of law. It is clear in the para 6 of the order of Settlement Commissioner that the petitioner filed an application on 12.9.1991 to the Tehsildar Mahal who further referred the application to the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation for necessary order. Gurdial Singh retired in the year 1976 and land was allotted against the claim on 28.10.1981 in due course of law. It is clear in the para 6 of the order of Settlement Commissioner that the petitioner filed an application on 12.9.1991 to the Tehsildar Mahal who further referred the application to the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation for necessary order. The Tehsildar Sales only complied with the order of the Headquarters conveyed to him on 7.1.1992. The possession was delivered to the petitioner on 6.3.1992 and sanad was issued on 11.7.1992. So far as application of Section 10 of Punjab Evacuee (Admn.) of Property Act, 1947 is concerned, it is not applicable in this case as the land was allotted to the petitioner under the new DP (C&R) Act, 1954. Thus, the ruling AIR-1971-HC-256 is not applicable. 10. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the parties. I have also analyzed the record placed on file. I find force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that sub- section 2 of section 24 provides that if the CSC is satisfied that any order or allotment had been obtained by fraud, false representation or concealment of any material facts, he may pass an order canceling the allotment. I have carefully perused the impugned order and find that petitioner is a displaced person who abandoned agricultural land in Distt. Layalpur in Pakistan and got the 15 S.As. 11 units area on 28.11.1981. Lateron 2 S.As. area was cancelled and restored to Amar Singh, deceased. In lieu of that, allotment of land measuring 10 kanals 1 marla was made by the Tehsildar on 17.1.1992 in compliance with the order of Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation (H.Q.) who was also vested with powers of CSC under section 24 of the Act. The CSC, Gurdaspur, by accepting the suo-moto reference, has crossed his jurisdiction in quashing the earlier order of allotment to the petitioner. Review is not permissible under the provisions of the Act except under section 25 of the Act whereby only clerical or arithmatical mistake in any order passed by an officer or authority under this Act or error arising thereto from any accidental slip can be corrected by such officer or authority or his/its successor in office. In this case, CSC, Gurdaspur has reviewed the order dated 16.8.1993 on the complaint of respondents wrongly. 11. In this case, CSC, Gurdaspur has reviewed the order dated 16.8.1993 on the complaint of respondents wrongly. 11. The Settlement Commissioner, Batala has made it clear in para 7 of his order dated 5.3.1992 that the respondents never moved any application for allotment of land on the basis of order dated 9.2.1987 passed by the Reh. Department (H.Q.). So far as the application dated 26.5.1989 is concerned, as per photo copy submitted before him it was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur which is not available in the record of Tehsildar Sales, Batala. Rather Rapat Roznamcha No. 495 dated 8.1.1990 is available according to which an area 16 kanals comprised in khasra No. 86R/1-10 R (i.e. 16 K. 0 M.) was restored to Amar Singh vide U.O. No. 926-30/Tehsildar-M.O. Chandigarh dated 9.2.1987. An entry was made in Jamabandi (placed at page 35 Flag "A") Gurdial Singh filed application dated 12.9.1991 to the Tehsildar which was forwarded to the Reh. Deptt. (H.Q.) for passing an appropriate order. The Headquarter accepted the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 2.1.1992 which was conveyed vide letter No. 116/Legal dated 7.1.1992. Thereafter, the Tehsildar allotted the land in Batala Garbi 11.B. 211, khasra No. 91R/25 (5-8), 91 R/17 (0-16), 24 (3-17) share 93/194 (10 K 1 M) i.e. 1 SA 5-1/2 units to the petitioner on 17.1.1992. As per para 5 of order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 5.3.1992, the respondents filed an application on 5.1.1992 which was forwarded to Deputy Secretary on 22.1.1992 for necessary action. No order has been passed by the Headquarters on the same. Accordingly, the authorities had taken action following the principle of "First come, first served". The respondents appeal has already been dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner, Batala and the revision petition has been dismissed in default on 16.8.1993 by the CSC. No application for restoration was filed by them. According to Rule 105 of DP (C&R) Rules, 1965 appeal/revision before Rehabilitation Authorities is governed by provisions of Order 41 CPC and according to Rule 17 of Order 41 an appeal/revision so dismissed could be got restored. Otherwise the order becomes final. Therefore, as for as the judicial machinery under Central DP (C&R) Act, 1954, is concerned, the order 17.1.1992 has become final. Section 27 of the Act specifically grants finality to such orders. Otherwise the order becomes final. Therefore, as for as the judicial machinery under Central DP (C&R) Act, 1954, is concerned, the order 17.1.1992 has become final. Section 27 of the Act specifically grants finality to such orders. The facts of file prove that the allotment to the petitioner by the Tehsildar Sales-cum-M.O. Batala is legal and according to the Rules, sanction of competent authority of Rehabilitation Department (Head Quarter), Chandigarh. I, therefore, accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned order of the CSC and uphold the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. Revision allowed.