Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act and relevant Rules, who by the respective orders disallowed the claim of the petitioner for allotment of the property as an excess land. 2. The claim of the petitioner was as regards 32 kanals 5 marlas of land equivalent to two standard acres 16/3/4 units which was treated as having been cancelled from the allotment by the Managing Officer vide his order dated 29.10.1963. Notwithstanding the cancellation order, the petitioner claimed that he remained in the possession and the order remained unimplemented. However, when this property had been transferred to one Gurbachan Singh, the petitioner challenged the transfer and the Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Kapurthala vide his order dated 19.06.1970 upheld the challenge and retrieved the land. The petitioner had made a request for purchase of the property of the cancelled allotment and it appears that the papers were pending consideration for determination of the price at which the property could be transferred to the petitioner. Although the cancellation of allotment to Gurbachan Singh had been made as early as on 07.09.1970, no action had been taken by the department to transfer the land to the petitioner or to finalize the sale purchase of the cancelled area. 3. On 25.05.1983, the Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer had allotted the cancelled land to Atoo Mal-respondent No. 4, an unsatisfied claimant, who further sold the property to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on 31.05.1983. It is the allotment to Atoo Mal and the subsequent transfer to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 that evoked interest in the land to the petitioner again when he staked his claim to the petitioner challenging the allotment in an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner. It appears that the appeal was dismissed for default in the year 1985 for non-appearance and an application for restoration was also dismissed on 26.11.1988. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner-cum- Settlement Officer, Kapurthala and the same was also dismissed on 08.04.1986. It appears that the appeal was dismissed for default in the year 1985 for non-appearance and an application for restoration was also dismissed on 26.11.1988. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner-cum- Settlement Officer, Kapurthala and the same was also dismissed on 08.04.1986. The matter had again gone in a further revision to the Financial Commissioner, who passed the final order not merely rejecting the claim on technical plea for non-appearance but dealing with the matter on merits, referring to a decision of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in Chief Settlement Commissioner (Rural), Punjab and another v. Ram Singh and others, AIR 1987 SC 1834 that a person, who seeks a claim under the relevant rules does not have a vested right to insist that the excess land should only be sold to him. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that a person in possession always has a preferential right for consideration to a person, who may stake a claim as a displaced person. The learned counsel refers to a decision of Division Bench in Bishan Singh and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others, 1973 PLJ 183 that even if other property is available for the satisfaction of unsatisfied claimants, the Managing Officer must consider the question whether the unsatisfied claimant could be satisfied from the other property in the village or elsewhere and it would be only in the extreme case where the claimant cannot be satisfied from other property, the right of an unsatisfied claimant for allotment could have preference over the right of the sitting persons to have the property transferred to them. It is the contention of the petitioner that as persons, who were actually in possession and who were successful in having a subsequent allotment made to Gurbachan Singh set aside, could not have been displaced at the instance of an unsatisfied claimant without the State addressing, the issue whether any other property was available or not. Although the argument is attractive, it must be seen in the context of how the Financial Commissioner has himself dealt with the specific point urged by the petitioner before him. The Financial Commissioner has found that after the cancellation of allotment to Gurbachan Singh on 19.06.1970, the petitioner took no steps to secure an allotment by appropriate transfer. Although the argument is attractive, it must be seen in the context of how the Financial Commissioner has himself dealt with the specific point urged by the petitioner before him. The Financial Commissioner has found that after the cancellation of allotment to Gurbachan Singh on 19.06.1970, the petitioner took no steps to secure an allotment by appropriate transfer. If the property, which remained at the disposal of the Government as a cancelled allotment was not followed up with a transfer to the petitioner in the manner known to law, then it shall not avail to the petitioner to invoke the Punjab Package Deal Property Rules of 1976. It is in this context the Honble Supreme Court judgment, which has been relied on by the Financial Commissioner obtains relevance. The decision referred to above is an authority for two aspects. (i) An allotment of land in excess of his lawful entitlement is not a vested right. To that extent, the petitioner cannot plead that by the fact that he retained possession, he was entitled to the allotment. (ii) Even if a displaced person could insist that the property should be given only to him, such a plea must be done on an appropriate legal basis at the earliest time and it shall be impermissible for such a person to stake a claim under the Package Deal Property Act or Rules for the first time at the time of arguments when it was not done before the competent authorities. The Honble Supreme Court actually dealt with an issue of when the petitioner, who was a displaced person and who was staking a claim under Rule 73 had not made any claim under the Punjab Package Deal Property Disposal-Rules and the Court said that it would not permit a person, who enjoyed the undeserved benefit to raise the plea for the first time in that Court. The learned counsel appearing for the State points out that there is no plea for consideration of his claim under the Punjab Package Deal Property Rules before any of the authorities nor even stated so in the writ petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the State points out that there is no plea for consideration of his claim under the Punjab Package Deal Property Rules before any of the authorities nor even stated so in the writ petition. 5. If a displaced person has no right to an allotment of an excess land and if his claim for preferential consideration to yet another unsatisfied claimant was not made at the appropriate time, the fact that the petitioner had not taken any steps between the year 1970-1983 when the property was actually allotted to the 5th respondent, then it would not avail to the petitioner to make such a claim now. The issue has been dealt with appropriately by the authority below and there is no scope for interference through the writ petition. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs.