ORDER Mr. Krishna Mohan, IAS.: - This suo mote reference was made to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 for setting aside the orders dated 3.8.1988 and 10.8.1988 passed by the Settlement Officer (Sales) cum Assistant Registrar cum Managing Officer respectively and also the U.O. dated 10.8.1988 issued by the Assistant Registrar cum M.O. vide which allotment of land to the extent of 18 standard acres 3-1/2 units was allowed and further for setting aside the allotment of land made in pursuance to the said orders, to the extent of 18 standard acres 3-1/2 units, in villages Panchhi Gujran tehsil Gannaur (55 Kanals 4 Marla), Kherka Musalman tehsil Bahadurgarh (70 Kanals 10 Marlas) and Bega tehsil Gannaur 292 Kanals. As per the contentions made in the reference, prima facie the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 23.2.2002 found merits in the case and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case stayed further alienation of the land in question in any manner and ordered that the stay order be implemented in the revenue record. The parties were summoned in the matter. When the matter was under process, the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the allied enactments were repealed by the Central Government vide Displaced Persons Cairns and other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 and thus, no further proceedings could continue. Therefore, vide order dated 5.4.2006, the record of the case was ordered to be returned and the court file was ordered to be consigned to the record. 2. The State Government enacted Haryana Evacuee Properties (Management & Disposal) Act, 2008 as amended vide Act No. 5 of 2010. In the above noted case, an application dated 18.6.2013 was moved to this Court contending that the allotment of land in the said case was obtained by concealment of facts, misrepresentations and there were also some material irregularities in the allotment of the said land and this Court has been empowered under Section 20 read with Section 9 of the said Act for taking cognizance in such matters. The grounds stated in the said reference be read as part and parcel of the said application. The grounds stated in the said reference be read as part and parcel of the said application. Keeping in view the fact that suo-motu cognizance had already been taken by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the proceedings had to be discontinued due to repealment of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, this Court vide order dated 1.7.2013 considered that this was a fit case for taking cognizance in the matter and ordered to summon the parties. 3. When the case was under process before this Court, Sh. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate also made an application in this case for impleading S/Sh. Suresh Kumar Harish Chand, Jagdish Kumar sons of Asa Nand residents of village Panchhi Gujran, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat as necessary party on the ground that they are in occupation/possession of the land situated in village Panchhi Gujran and they are entitled to get in transferred as per the Haryana Evacuee Properties (Management and Disposal) Rules, 2011. 4. The admitted facts of the case are that in the year 1920 Sh. Chhelu Ram son of Lal Ji, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was given land in Chak No. 13/IAL Tehsil Aukara District Mintgoomeri (Pakistan) in recognition of his distinguished services during the great war 1914-19. The ownership rights of the said land were conferred on him in the year 1947. Sh. Chhelu Ram expired in Pakistan. His sons Nihal Singh and Rattan Singh and their mother Smt. Shingari migrated to India and they filed Parcha Claim in lieu of the land left by them in Pakistan. They had left the land to the extent of 50 standard acres in Pakistan after applying the cut, they were allotted land to the extent of 33 standard acres 3-1/2 units in village Daim District Hisar at the time of general allotment and the Sanad Taqsim Arazi Matrooka was issued on 8.2.1950. 5. Thereafter respondents made an application dated 11.2.1988 to the Assistant Registrar, Rehabilitation Department contending that the allotment of land was made in the name of their father Sh. Chhelu through Nihal Singh and Rattan Singh and when the allotment of land was made, they were minor. Their father had abandoned land in Pakistan to the extent of 50 standard acres, which was given to him as a Gallantry Awardee for rendering the service in the Army and prayed that according to law no cut was to be imposed in such cases. Their father had abandoned land in Pakistan to the extent of 50 standard acres, which was given to him as a Gallantry Awardee for rendering the service in the Army and prayed that according to law no cut was to be imposed in such cases. Thus, less allotment to the extent of 18 standard acres has been made and the deficiency by made good and the allotment can be rectified under Section 25(2) of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954. The Assistant Registrar vide order dated 12.7.1988 rejected the case to the Assistant Registrar cum M.O. with the direction that he should check up the entitlement for allotment in accordance with the “quasi permanent allotment scheme” and in case the additional area was due, it should be allowed as per law. The Assistant Registrar vide his order dated 10.8.1988 allowed land to the extent of 18 standard acres 3-1/2 units on the ground that the land was relating to Gallantry Awardee and hence no cut was to be imposed and it was a clerical mistake. In pursuance to the said order, U.O. No. 3541-43/ARH dated 10.8.1988 was issued to Tehsildar (Sales) Bhiwani for allotment of land to the extent of 18 standard acres 3-1/2 units. 6. Consequently, land to the extent 18 standard acres 3-1/2 units was allotted in the name of Chhelu Ram through Nihal Singh and Rattan Singh in village Barkatabad tehsil Bahadurgarh on 3.6.1993/7.6.1993 however the possession thereof could not be delivered, hence the said allotment of land was cancelled by the Tehsildar (Sales) vide order dated 2.9.1994. It was thereafter that land to the extent of 55 Kanal 4 Marla (6 SA 141/4 Unit) was allotted to the said allottee in village Panchi Gujaran (Sonepat), 2 standard acres 3-1/4 units (70 Kanals 10 Marla) in village Kherka Musalman tehsil Bahadurgarh and 292 Kanals (9 SA 8.2 Unit) in village Bega tehsil Sonepat on 28.6.1995. 7. That during the course of hearing and in the reference the case of the petitioner State is that Sh. Chhelu Ram had expired in Pakistan. The property of Chhelu Ram was inherited by his LRs namely Nihal Singh and Rattan Singh and their mother Smt. Shingari and they filed the ‘Parcha Claim’ for claiming the land at the time of general allotment. Chhelu Ram had expired in Pakistan. The property of Chhelu Ram was inherited by his LRs namely Nihal Singh and Rattan Singh and their mother Smt. Shingari and they filed the ‘Parcha Claim’ for claiming the land at the time of general allotment. He submitted that the property being an inherited property, the statutory graded cut was rightly imposed at the time of general allotment of land and land to the extent of 33 standard acres 3-1/2 units was legally and correctly allotted to the allottee, hence the full and final claim was satisfied. Thereafter, the Sanad was issued on 8.2.1950. He submitted that there was no question for claiming more land under the garb and guise of the gallantry award a lapse of 38 years of the original allotment and the application made on 11.2.1988 was hopelessly time barred as the application for allotment of land could only be submitted up to 31.12.1963. He submitted that Assistant Registrar vide his order dated 12.7.1988 rightly rejected the claim of the respondents and the subsequent orders dated 3.8.1988 and 10.8.1988 passed by the Settlement Officer (Sales)-cum-Assistant Registrar were the act in collusion. The ADA argued that additional area to the extent of 18 standard acres 13-1/2 units was allowed illegally exempting them from the statutory cut because as per Appendix IV page 310 of Re-settlement Manual, the only second world war awardees were entitled for concession from exemption of statutory cut and not the awardees of first world war. He submitted that Sh. Chhelu Ram died in Pakistan and the property was inherited by his legal heirs, who filed the claim. It has also been alleged that even the Assistant Registrar was not competent to entertain the said application and decide the same as per law and thus, the orders dated 10.8.1988 even was without jurisdiction. The application dated 11.2.1988 was also not filed on the prescribed proforma nor accompanied by the relevant documents as required under Section 4 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 and Rules 3 & 4 of the D.P. (C&R) Rules 1955. He submitted that the claim of the respondents was not even covered within the definition of “verified claim” as defined under section 2(e) of the ibid Act and no notice was even given to State before allowing the additional land as the matter was being decided quasi judicially. He submitted that the claim of the respondents was not even covered within the definition of “verified claim” as defined under section 2(e) of the ibid Act and no notice was even given to State before allowing the additional land as the matter was being decided quasi judicially. The ADA also pointed out that the land allotted in village Bega & Kherka Musalman was not even allotable as the same was recorded as ‘Shamilat deh’, ‘Gair Mumkin Abadi’ and ‘Gair Mumkin Rait’. The ADA also argued that the respondents did not submit grounds for filing the application time barred that too after 38 years and allotment of land in India was not in favour of gallantry awardee rather in favour of legal heirs of awardee. The ADA also vehemently denied the arguments of the Counsel for the respondent/allottees that the case of the respondents could be covered under the ‘Military reward or military Jagir Grants’ which were exempted from the cut as mentioned in Appendix-IV at page 310. He argued that the Gallantry award grants has specifically been mentioned in the Appendix IV and the awardee of the grant of IInd world war have only been given exemption from the cut. The ADA prayed for setting aside the impugned orders as well as the allotment of land made in pursuance thereto. 8. In the written arguments as well as during the course of hearing, Counsel for the respondents took the preliminary objections that in the reference the allotment orders dated 28.6.1995 of Tehsildar (Sales) cum M.O. allotting the land to the respondents have not been challenged, the Assistant Registrar Land Claims Organisation was only the competent authority for determining the eligibility for allotment of land and his orders were final in this regard as neither the Chief Settlement Commissioner nor the Financial Commissioner were the authorities under the Claims Act and thus the reference was liable to be turned down. On merits, it has been argued that since Gallantry Award was conferred upon Shri Chhelu Ram and the claim was filed by his sons in India in lieu of the land allotted in capacity of Gallantry award no cut was to be imposed on such type of lands and cut was wrongly imposed. On merits, it has been argued that since Gallantry Award was conferred upon Shri Chhelu Ram and the claim was filed by his sons in India in lieu of the land allotted in capacity of Gallantry award no cut was to be imposed on such type of lands and cut was wrongly imposed. He submitted that it was in the year 1988 that the deficiency was made good as it was not a fresh claim and such claims were not covered under Rule 67-A. Counsel argued that the present reference has been mane by completely ignoring Appendix IV page 310 which provides the valuation of Colony Rights Value in terms of Proprietary land, wherein it has been mentioned that Military reward or Military Jagir Grants 100% if the other conditions (e.g. lapse of prescribed period from allotment or from grant of occupancy rights) have been fulfilled, otherwise 75%” and in present case the occupancy rights were conferred upon the allottee Shri Chhelu son of Shri Lal Jai and therefore, he was entitled for the hundred percent allotment and no statutory cut was permissible in this case. He submitted that it was a clerical mistake, which has been rightly corrected by passing the detailed speaking orders in the year 1988 by the competent authorities. He submitted that land in village Panchhi Gujran was allotted to respondents and this land was earlier allotted to Ominder Hari Darshan Singh and the said allotment in favour of Ominder etc. was cancelled. Further that, matter want upto the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 12474 of 1999 and at the instance of the respondents the stay granted by the Hon’ble High Court was vacated on 13.3.2001. The Counsel argued that the present reference appears to be a motivated one as it was made after the vacation of the stay, otherwise the allotment had been allowed in the year 1988 and there was no occasion for making such reference in the year 2002. With regard to the delay, the Counsel argued that it was the respondents who were sufferer and not the petitioner-State. He argued that the reference has been made after a long lapse of 25 years and the reference is also liable to be turned down on this ground alone. Further that, the respondents have been given the proprietary rights, which were conferred in the year 1996. He argued that the reference has been made after a long lapse of 25 years and the reference is also liable to be turned down on this ground alone. Further that, the respondents have been given the proprietary rights, which were conferred in the year 1996. The counsel also argued that warrant of possession was issued and the same were executed vide Rapat No. 632. With regard to the application filed by Sh. Dinesh Ghai Advocate, the counsel argued that the land has been allotted to the respondents. He submitted that as per the revenue record, respondents were the owners of the land in question and thus, the applicants have no case to be impleaded as party in the present proceedings. Further that their cause, if any, would arise in case the allotment made in the name of the respondents is cancelled and at this stage this application is premature. The Counsel in support of his contention cited 2004(3) RCR (Civil) 765, CWP No. 4928 of 1987 Ram Ditta v. State decided on 2.11.2010, on CWP No. 6058 of 1987 (C&M) decided 20.12.2011. The ADA in rebuttal, argued that under Section 20 of the Haryana Evacuee Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 2008 amended Act 2010, this court has powers to adjudicate the matters in which the orders for allotment of land have been passed on some material irregularities, fraud and mis-representations and since in this case the “material irregularities”, “fraud” and “mis-representations” are apparent from the record, therefore, the reference is liable to be accepted. However, with regard to the application filed by Sh. Dinesh Ghai, the ADA agreed with the contention of the Sh. Som Nath Saini that the application for impleading them as party is pre-mature and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Sh. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate argued that the applicants are in continuous cultivating possession of the land and they have applied to the Tehsildar (Sales), Sonepat for transfer of the land under the Haryana Evacuee properties (Management & Disposal) Rules 2011. He submitted that the application was rejected merely on the ground that the land had already been allotted to the present respondents. He submitted that applicants filed writ petition before the Deputy Commissioner turn Commissioner (Sales) against the orders of the Tehsildar (Sales) and their petitions are still pending, thus, the applicants have the rights to be impleaded as party in this case. He submitted that applicants filed writ petition before the Deputy Commissioner turn Commissioner (Sales) against the orders of the Tehsildar (Sales) and their petitions are still pending, thus, the applicants have the rights to be impleaded as party in this case. The Counsel argued that for the purpose of adjudication of factum of necessary party, it is to be observed whether a party is affected by the decision of a case, and since the decision of the reference will affect the rights/claims of the applicants, thus they are the necessary parties, to be heard in this case. 10. I have heard the Counsels for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file. Undisputedly, Chhellu Ram was land owner to the extent 50 standard acres in Ankara, District Mintgoomeri, Pakistan and the land was allotted to him for rendering the distinguished services in World War-1st, 1914-1919, wherein he was awarded “Gallantry Award”. The Governor General of India vide Sanad/Certificate dated 20-07-1920 awarded a grant of land in Punjab as a token. Thereafter on partition, the legal heirs of Shri Chhellu Ram were allotted land to the extent 33 standards 3-1/2 units, after imposing a cut on his total land holdings i.e. 50 standard acres. Admittedly, Shri Chhellu Ram was a Gallantry awardee of World War-1st and the land allotted before partition in Pakistan was in lieu thereof. The LRs of the aforesaid “Gallantry Award”, Shri Chhellu Ram made an application dated 11-02-1988, asking therein for allotment of land to the extent of 18 standard acres, which was denied at the time of general allotment. The aforesaid application dated 11-02-1988 was rejected by Managing Officer on 12-07-1988. Settlement Officer (Sales) vide order dated 03-08-1988 set aside the order dated 12-07-1988 and allowed the claim for checking up the case of the respondents in accordance with “Quasi Permanent Allotment Scheme”. It is pertinent to mention that the “Quasi Permanent Allotment Scheme” of allotment was issued vide notification No. 4892-S dated 08-07-1949 by the East Punjab Government, wherein the displaced persons were allowed to continue in possession of the allotted land on the same terms and conditions and they were give option to get the land transferred in their name in lieu of the compensation to be paid to them, if they still hold the possession of the said land. In case in hand, the allotment was made admittedly in favour of Chhellu Ram on 08.02.1950. The fact regarding the total holdings i.e. 50 standard acres in hand of the land owner had not been denied at any stage and also the finding regarding the entitlement in accordance with “Quasi Permanent Allotment Scheme” had not been denied or argued so far. The rights of persons to whom land is given in the scheme of “Quasi Permanent Resettlement” are defined in two statements of conditions dated 08-07-1949 issued with notification Nos. 4891/S and 4892/S. The expressions ‘allotment’ and ‘lease’ are used so as to correspond respectively to ‘Quasi Permanent’ and ‘Temporary’ grant of land. Allotment on the basis of entries in Jamabandies or equivalent proof is described as quasi permanent, while grant of land by Custodian on the basis of oral verification in the absence of Jamabandies is described as temporary. An ‘allotment’ is made only to a displaced person who has abandoned certain land and rights in Western Pakistan. Notification dated 08-07-1949, relating to allotment, was issued by the Provincial Government under clauses (f) and (ff) of sub-section 2 of section 22 of East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property Act) 1947. The aforesaid notification dated 08-07-1949 defines the word “Allottee”, which “includes the heirs, legal representatives and lessees of the allottee and, if there are co-shares in the allotment, any liability imposed by this Statement of Conditions shall be the joint and several liability of each co-sharer”. Perusal of aforesaid definition of ‘allottee’ reveals that the benefit of allotment could not be restricted only to the land owner rather it includes his heirs as well as legal representatives. Also the perusal of aforesaid notification shows nowhere any condition regarding the imposition of statutory cut, as alleged. Admittedly and undisputedly the allotment was made to the Gallantry Awardee on 06-02-1950 and is fully covered under the scheme of quasi-permanent allotment. 11. In present reference, the main ground for challenging the aforesaid orders dated 03-08-1988 and 10-08-1988 is that Gallantry Award Grants, if any, were available to the grants which have been mentioned in Re-settlement Manual. Appendix-IV of the Manual provides the valuation in terms of proprietary land, wherein based on the nature of grant/holdings, an entitlement has been prescribed regarding the statutory cut. Appendix-IV of the Manual provides the valuation in terms of proprietary land, wherein based on the nature of grant/holdings, an entitlement has been prescribed regarding the statutory cut. In case of Gallantry Award Grants, entitlement of the land is without any cut, if physical possession has been taken and the benefit awarded is for World War-2nd only, as mentioned. However, there is no justification to deprive the same benefit to the Gallantry Award Grants awarded in World War-1st. Therefore, in my view without any substantive law, the benefit could not be restricted only to the Gallantry Award Grants awarded in World War-2nd. Moreover, the same Appendix-IV provides full entitlement without any cut in case of Military Reward or Military Jagir Grants. As provided, entitlement is hundred percent for Military Reward or Military Jagir Grants if the other conditions (e.g. lapse of prescribed period for allotment or from grant of occupancy rights) have been fulfilled. In the present case there seems to be no justification to debar the Gallantry Awardee of Great War-1st (World War-1) from the benefit of “Military Reward or Military Jagir Grants”, even for the sake of argument if the benefit is restricted to World-War-2nd, if other conditions were being fulfilled. Otherwise also, it would be the denial of a legitimate right to Gallantry Awardee and will discriminate him qua the benefit granted to a similar category i.e. Military Reward or Military Jagir Grants. 12. As far as the contention of the petitioner that the applicant approached the authorities at belated stage and they made their application for allotment much after the prescribed date i.e. 31-12-1963, as provided under Rule 67-A rules applicable, it is settled provision of law that if less allotment had been made to the allottee by mistake i.e. allotment had occurred due to some clerical or arithmetical error, that could be rectified under section 25(2) and that too even in case the application was made after prescribed date i.e. 31-12-1963. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the case law cited 1978 PU (P&H), the relevant portion is reproduced as under:- “………….. In that case also less allotment had been made to the petitioners by mistake and the relief was not granted on the plea that the application for additional allotment had not been made before December 31,1963, as prescribed under rule 67A. In that case also less allotment had been made to the petitioners by mistake and the relief was not granted on the plea that the application for additional allotment had not been made before December 31,1963, as prescribed under rule 67A. It was held that rule 67 A was not applicable in view of rule 69 and deficiency in the allotment had occurred due to some clerical or arithmetical error which could be rectified under section 25(2) of the Act. I am in entire agreement with the ratio of the aforesaid decision and hold that the authority having found that the petitioner had been allotted land ought to have corrected the mistake under section 25(2) of the Act”. In view of aforesaid settled law, I find no justification that the application could not be entertained after 31-12-1963. The contention of the petitioner that the legal heirs of the Gallantry Awardee could not be granted the benefit is also without any base and supported law and hence the benefit granted to successors-in-interest are legally entitled to inherit the property left by “Gallantry Awardee”. 13. A reference was filed before Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 24 of ibid Act, 1954. The then CSC took the suo moto cognizance on the reference filed by the petitioner State and on 28-02-2002 it was ordered that “keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the case further alienation of the land-in-question, in any manner is stayed and the Tehsildar (Sales) concerned is directed to implement this stay order in the revenue record and send compliance report”. Consequently, the entry regarding the aforesaid stay was entered in the revenue record. On repealing of Act, 1954 the proceedings were stopped by CSC in the reference on 05-04-2006. As such on the dismissal of reference on 05-04-2005 on the repealing of Act, 1954, the operation of interim stay dated 28-02-2002 would have also been automatically vacated since on the dismissal of reference, the interim stay also goes. However, it seems that in revenue records the entries regarding the aforesaid interim stay find mentioned thereafter also. It is pertinent to mention that the mutation was sanctioned by the Revenue Officer concerned in favour of legal heirs of the allottee. However, it seems that in revenue records the entries regarding the aforesaid interim stay find mentioned thereafter also. It is pertinent to mention that the mutation was sanctioned by the Revenue Officer concerned in favour of legal heirs of the allottee. However, the present reference was started on the application dated 18-06-2013 moved by the petitioner under section 20 read with section 9 of Haryana Evacuee Properties (Management & Disposal) Act, 2008 (Further amended Act, 2010). Perusal of Section 20 of Act, 2008 (Amended Act, 2010) reveals that the State Government shall be competent to cancel the allotment, if the allotment of land has been obtained by concealment of facts or by fraud or has been made on the basis of material irregularity under the provisions of Act, 1954 and rules made there under. In the present case the main contention is that Gallantry Award allottee was related to World War-1 and hence was not entitled for the due benefit. There seems to be no justification to deny the benefit to the allottee, who was awarded the Gallantry Award for his distinguished service during World War-1. Gallantry Awards and Military Rewards are provided for the distinguished service rendered by the awardee. Even for the sake of arguments that the benefit of 100% allotment is restricted only to the awardee of World War-2, then in the same Appendix a similar category of Military Reward or Military Jagir Grants provides for 100% allotment of land, if other conditions are fulfilled. As such, the allottee/respondents were also entitled for benefit in case of similar category, Military Reward or Military Jagir Grants as provided in Appendix IV itself. There is no ground, which entitles the petitioner to invoke the provisions of section 20 of Act, 2008. The provisions of Section 20 and Section 9 are re-produced as under: “20. As such, the allottee/respondents were also entitled for benefit in case of similar category, Military Reward or Military Jagir Grants as provided in Appendix IV itself. There is no ground, which entitles the petitioner to invoke the provisions of section 20 of Act, 2008. The provisions of Section 20 and Section 9 are re-produced as under: “20. Saving-The Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (31 of 1950), the Displaced persons (Claims) Act, 1950 (44 of 1950), the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (64 of 1951), the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954 (12 of 1954) and the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), have been repealed by the Displaced Persons Claims and other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 (38 of 2005): Provided that if the allotment of land has been obtained by concealment of facts or by fraud or has been made on the basis of material irregularity under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), and rules made thereunder, the State Government shall be competent to cancel the allotment and take the possession for the disposal or the said property as per the provisions of this Act. The powers of State Government under this section shall be exercised by the authority specified under section 9.” …………..” Section 9. The State Government may at any time call for the record of any proceedings under this Act and may pass such order in relation thereto as in its opinion the circumstances of the case require and as is not inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder: Provided that the powers of State Government under this section shall be exercised by the Secretary: Provided further that no order which prejudicially affects the interest of any person shall be passed under this section without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 14. Perusal of aforesaid provisions reveals that the case of the petitioner is neither based on concealment of fact or by fraud nor has been made on the basis of material irregularity rather it was a clerical or arithmetical mistake which could be rectified under section 25(2) of Act, 1954. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the case law cited 1978 PLJ 165. 15. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the case law cited 1978 PLJ 165. 15. The present reference has been filed on 20-02-2002 i.e. after a lapse of almost 14 years that too without any explanation for delay in the matter. Though there is no limit prescribed for availing the remedy under section 9 or section 20 of Act, 2008, however, it should be availed within a reasonable time. Expression “at any time” would not he indefinite and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Loku Ram v. State of Haryana ; 2000(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 141 : 1999(1) PLJ-1 held that the power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. And the length of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order, which is being revised. In the present case the original reference was filed in year 2002 for challenging the orders dated 03-08-1988 and 10-08-1988, which was consigned to record-room on 05-04-2006. Further the present reference initiated under section 20 read with section 9 has been filed after a delay of more than 24 years from the passing of impugned orders, which could not be termed as reasonable time, keeping in view the facts of the case and nature of the order challenged. 16. Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 4928 of 1987; Ram Ditta v. State of Haryana and others held that it was not now open to the authorities to unsettle the settled matters after a long period of two decades. The relevant para is reproduced as under:- “…….Allotment in favour of the petitioner was confirmed on November 30, 1962. As per admitted position, possession of the land in dispute was handed over to the petitioner 12 days prior to the issuance of notification dated August 4, 1962 declaring, the land in dispute as perennial in nature. It is nobody’s case that in getting the allotment, the petitioner had played any fraud or made any misrepresentation. It was for the authorities to take note of the notification issued on August 4, 1962. Possession has already been delivered to the petitioner before issuance of the above said notification. He continued as such for a long period of 19 years when reference was made by Settlement Officer-cum-Managing Officer. It was for the authorities to take note of the notification issued on August 4, 1962. Possession has already been delivered to the petitioner before issuance of the above said notification. He continued as such for a long period of 19 years when reference was made by Settlement Officer-cum-Managing Officer. This Court is of the opinion that in view of the ratio of the judgments of this Court in Karam Chand Thakar Doss’ case (supra) and Sucha Singh’s case (supra), it was not open to the authorities to unsettle the settled matters after a long period of two decades. Otherwise also, the petitioner is a person, who had migrated from Pakistan. The authorities were required to show sympathy to him. Not only as above, land was allotted to the petitioner out of the compensation pool being managed by the Central Government under the provisions of the Act………….” In another case titled as Hari Chand v. FCR and others (In CWP No. 6058 of 1987), Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that there was no justification for re-opening the matter at the whims of State two decades later. The relevant para is reproduced as under:- “……. An action that was taken towards displaced persons favouring an allotment on 05-09-1949 and conferring him the proprietary rights on 07-11-1955, cannot be re-opened at the whims of State two decades later. There was no justification for such an exercise. This Court has examined the effect of such unexplained delay in the decision in “Suba Ram and others v. The State of Haryana, [2012(1) Law Herald (P&H) 629 : 2012(1) Land L.R. 645] : 2012(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 118 CWP No. 4949 of 1987 dated 16-11-2011 to hold that such unexplained delay would prevent the State from exercising any right of resumption or modification under the Act, 1954.” 17. Now, coming to the application moved by applicants, Suresh Kumar and others, it was averred that the applicants were in the continuous cultivating possession of the land and hence entitled for transfer of land under Haryana Evacuee Properties (Management and Disposal) Rules, 2011. Admittedly, the land-in-question was allotted to the respondents vide impugned order dated 10.8.1988, therefore under Rules, 2011 the applicant could not claim any right for transferring the land over the private property. Admittedly, the land-in-question was allotted to the respondents vide impugned order dated 10.8.1988, therefore under Rules, 2011 the applicant could not claim any right for transferring the land over the private property. Moreover, cultivator has no right since it was an allotted land on the allotment, the allottee was entitled to all rights, which were transferred to him by the Government. Since, on allotment, the State Government has been divested of its interest in the property, therefore it could not be termed as “Evacuee Property” thereafter and hence no right accrued to the applicants under Rules, 2011. Therefore, I also do not find any merit in the application for impleading them as necessary parties and hence dismiss the same. In view of the above, I find no merit in present reference(s) filed through dated 18.6.2013 under section 9 read with section 20 of Act, 2008 (Amended in 2010) and also the original reference filed before CSC and hence dismiss the reference(s). To be communicated. ------------------