JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: - Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 13.08.2013 (Annexure P/10), order dated 19.03.2013 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab - respondent no.1, order dated 15.03.2011 (Annexure P/4) passed by Special Secretary Revenue, Punjab exercising the powers of Claims Commissioner under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Amendment Act, 2009 – respondent No.2 and order dated 27.08.1981 (Annexure P/2) passed by Assistant Registrar(L)/Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department, Punjab, Jalandhar – respondent no.3. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners allegedly purchased land measuring 26 kanals 14-2/3 marlas situated at Village Kotla, Tehsil and District Jalandhar from Malook Singh vide registered sale deed dated 15.01.1962. Mutation No. 2063 was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners. Malook Singh also sold land measuring 17 kanals 14 marlas situated at Village Kotla, Tehsil and District Jalandhar to Daulat Ram son of Raba Ram vide sale deed dated 28.04.1964 and mutation no. 2090 was sanctioned in his favour. Rehabilitation Department cancelled area to the tune of 1 SA 9 Units vide order dated 27.08.1981 (Annexure P/2) from the name of Malook Singh without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their vendors. Said order was implemented on 12.11.1986. It is pleaded by the petitioner that Managing Officer has wrongly said that Malook Singh had sold total area of this village to the petitioners. Jamabandi for the year 1962-63 (Annexure P/1) shows that Malook Singh had sold 17 kanals 14 marlas land to Daulat Ram on 28.04.1964. Vide order dated 27.08.1981 (Annexure P/2), respondent no.3 cancelled 1.9 SAs being excess land and held that allottee is only entitled to 5-11 ¼ SAs. Respondent no.3 also ordered the recovery of rent from unauthorized occupants. Against the order (Annexure P/2), petitioners preferred an appeal. The settlement Commissioner, Punjab, accepted the appeal and set aside the order (Annexure P/2) and remanded the case to respondent no.3 for fresh decision vide order dated 23.02.1989 (Annexure P/3). The matter remained pending before respondent no.3 and in the meantime, the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was repealed by Government of India in the year 2005. The case came up for hearing before the Claims Commissioner, Punjab. The matter remained pending before respondent no.3 and in the meantime, the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was repealed by Government of India in the year 2005. The case came up for hearing before the Claims Commissioner, Punjab. The Claims Commissioner vide order dated 15.02.2011 (Annexure P/4) rejected the claim of the petitioners holding that the petitioners cannot claim better title than Malook Singh and upheld the order of respondent no.3. Against that, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 4-E of Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Amendment Act, 2009 before respondent no.1, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 19.03.2013 (Annexure P/8). Thereafter, the petitioners preferred a review application before respondent no.1 which has also been dismissed vide order dated 13.08.2013 (Annexure P/10). Hence, this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 4. Perusal of the record shows that when the original claim was settled, Malook Singh and his brothers were held entitled to allotment of additional 2 SA – 1 ¼ units of land vide order dated 16.12.1960 by the Managing Officer in lieu of land left by them in Pakistan. Initially the allotment was on quasi permanent basis but was subsequently made permanent in the year 1962. However, in the year 1981, an area of 1 SA 9 units was cancelled in the name of Malook Singh. This cancellation was set aside in the year 1989 on the ground that order dated 27.08.1981 had been passed ex-parte. Managing Officer was directed to decide the matter afresh. However, this matter remained pending till the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Admittedly, issue in dispute is cancellation of land which was allotted in lieu of land left in Pakistan and the land in dispute was sold before its cancellation. Petitioners are claiming property in dispute and the protection under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 being subsequent vendees. However, the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are different. Petitioners are claiming property in dispute and the protection under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 being subsequent vendees. However, the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are different. The Full Bench of this Court has considered this aspect in the case of Smt. Niranjan Kaur and others versus The Financial Commissioner, Revenue and Secretary to Govt., Punjab and others, [2010(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3282 (FB)] : 2011(1) PLR 110 and held that protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act is sub servient to Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act. Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not over-ride the provisions of Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act. In view of this, the plea of bona fide purchaser is not available to the petitioners. Concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the authorities below. In view of above discussion, the present writ petition fails. Dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————