ORDER : 1. This revision petition has been preferred under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order dated 3-12-2011, passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation. H.P. in Case no. 19/2000 CSC, whereby the order passed by the Naib-Tehsildar (Sales)-I cum-Managing Officer, Shimla dated 29.11.1994, has been set aside and the conveyance deed dated 8.12.1994, executed in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled restoring the property in question to the Central Government. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that land comprised in Khasra nos. 236, 263', 264,265, kita 4, area measuring 0-74-91 hectares, situated in Up Mohal Mawasindhian Upperla, Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una, H.P., was recoded in the ownership of "Arazi Matruka" (means, land of deceased) in self cultivating possession as per jamabandi for the year 1987-88. On the application dated 10.8.1994, of the present petitioner, this land was sold and transferred in his favour by the Naib-Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Shimla vide order dated 29.11.1994 for a consideration of Rs. 750/-, and sale certificate was also accordingly issued on 8.12.1994. 3. In the year 2000, the Id. Chief Settlement Commissioner, H.P. (CSC) Rehabilitation, H.P. initiated suo-motu proceedings under section 24 of the Act, and issued a show cause notice to the present petitioner. After affording due opportunity of being heard to the parties and on perusal of the record, the Id. CSC, observed that the Naib-Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, had transferred the land in question to the present petitioner, in utter violation of the law and further that the said Officer was not competent to sell or transfer the property in such a manner, and he had no authority to convert the unauthorized possession into permanent ownership. It has been further observed that the Officer has misused his official position and committed a fraud with the Government for which act, criminal proceedings were separately initiated against him. Accordingly, vide order dated 3.12.2011, the Id. CSC cancelled the conveyance deed executed on 8.12.1994, and ordered to restore the said property in favour of the Government. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the above order of the CSC, the present petitioner has filed this revision petition. The Id. Accordingly, vide order dated 3.12.2011, the Id. CSC cancelled the conveyance deed executed on 8.12.1994, and ordered to restore the said property in favour of the Government. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the above order of the CSC, the present petitioner has filed this revision petition. The Id. counsel for the petitioner has failed to argue the case despite several opportunities provided to him since 13.12.2013, and has even failed to file written arguments despite providing more than 20 days period on 25.2.2016, therefore, the grounds of the revision petition have been taken into consideration as plea of the petitioner. 5. The revision petition, has been filed on the grounds that the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner were in occupation of the land in question since long, though in an unauthorized manner, but the said evacuee land was ultimately transferred by the concerned department in favour of the petitioner in the year 1994 under the provisions of Rule 91(8) of the Displaced Persons(Compensation & Rehabilitation)Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), and therefore, the Id. CSC has committed an error while cancelling the conveyance deed dated 8.12.1994 It has been alleged that when the matter was taken up for final hearing by the CSC, the contents of the reply filed by the petitioner, were not duly appreciated. The petitioner had also shown two copies of the orders passed by the predecessor of the then CSC, whereby the encroachers were told to deposit the highest market value for that year as approved by the competent authority, but the CSC did not consider the same while passing the impugned orders. The petitioner has also referred to a similar matter examined and decided by the Honble High Court i.e. "CWP No. 421/2006 titled as Bhagwan Singh v. State of H.P", on the submission of Id. Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State the Honble High Court has ordered to lease out the land to the writ petitioner. The petitioner has also annexed copies of the aforesaid orders. Further, it has been contended that after the execution of conveyance deed, the petitioner has constructed a house on the land in dispute and as such, has made huge investment therein. The petitioner has also annexed copies of the aforesaid orders. Further, it has been contended that after the execution of conveyance deed, the petitioner has constructed a house on the land in dispute and as such, has made huge investment therein. Referring to the provisions of Rule 87, 90,91 and 92 of the Rules, 1955, the petitioner has contended that the N T.(Sales)-cum-Managing Officer was competent/to transfer the land in question and the CSC has no powers to cancel the conveyance deed. It has also been averred that the said evacuee land, does not form part of compensation pool under the provisions of section 14 of the Act, and the provisions contained in section 20 of the Act are not applicable to the present case and therefore, the Id. CSC has wrongly presumed that the properties is part of the compensation pool and can be sold in public auction or by inviting tenders or by the special or general orders to be issued by the CSC. Further, that the evacuee property which has been included in compensation pool shall have to vest in the Central Government free from all encumbrances and shall have to be utilised in accordance with the provision of this Act and Rules. Lastly, the petitioner has referred to a letter dated 31.7.1971, said to have been issued by the Ministry of Labour & Rehabilitation (Department of Rehabilitation) Government of India, addressed to the Secretary to the Government of H.P.(Revenue Department) with regard to administration and management of remaining acquired evacuee agricultural land/ properties and realisation of rental demand etc., wherein, in para 2, it has been stated to have been mentioned that "undersigned has been directed to convey the sanction of the President to the following administrative and financial arrangements being made with the State Government of H.P. for the management and disposal of the remaining acquired evacuee agriculture land/rural and urban properties and realisation of arrears of rental demand in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder". Therefore, it has been claimed that in view of the said decision, the properties in the State of H.P. which even though may be in unauthorized possession of the occupants can be disposed of by the State Govt., in favour of the occupants after getting the price fixed. Therefore, it has been claimed that in view of the said decision, the properties in the State of H.P. which even though may be in unauthorized possession of the occupants can be disposed of by the State Govt., in favour of the occupants after getting the price fixed. Therefore, it has been urged that the present property of which the present petitioner and others similarly situated persons are occupants, may be sold to them as per the valuation assessed by the custodian department. 6. I have heard the. Distt. Attorney (Rev) appearing on behalf of the State/respondent, who argued that a fraud has been committed is clearly manifest in the said transaction, and the orders of sale have been passed by the N.T. (Sales), without following the prescribed procedure. No valuation of the property has been done and connivance of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. Ld. D A. (Rev) further argued that the petitioner cannot claim any benefit on the basis of any judgment because an illegal transaction does not create any enforceable right, title and interest and further that the Honble High Court has taken cognizance of several encroachments on Government and Forest land and Evacuee property falls in the same category. Lastly, the Id. Distt. Attorney argued that encroachment over the Central Government land cannot be regularised in the garb of sale under the Act, and vehemently opposed the present revision petition and urged to dismiss the same. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of respondent/State and considered the plea of the petitioner in the revision petition, and have carefully gone through the record of the court below. From the above averments advanced on behalf of both the parties, it is clear that the main issue to be determined is, whether, the Managing Officer-cum-Naib-Tehsildar(Sales) was competent/ authorised to transfer the land in question in the manner as has been done in the present case. For this purpose it would be appropriate to discuss the relevant provisions of the Act and the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Section 17 the Act provides for functions and duties of the managing officers and managing corporations. Sub-Section (1) and (2) of said section are relevant and therefore reproduced, as follows: "17. Section 17 the Act provides for functions and duties of the managing officers and managing corporations. Sub-Section (1) and (2) of said section are relevant and therefore reproduced, as follows: "17. Functions and duties of managing officers and managing corporations: (1) All managing officers or managing corporations shall perform such functions as may be assigned to them by or under the general superintendence and control of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and rules made thereunder, a managing officer or managing corporation may take such measures as he or it considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing, administering, preserving, managing or disposing of any property in the compensation pool entrusted to him or it and generally for the purpose of satisfactorily discharging any of the duties imposed on him or it by or under this Act and may, for any such purpose as aforesaid, do all acts and incur all expenses necessary or incidental thereto. 8. From bare perusal of aforesaid provisions it is clear that the Managing Officer is empowered to manage evacuee property, but this power is to be exercised subject to superintendence of Chief Settlement Commissioner. Section 20 of the Act, empowers the managing officer or managing corporation to transfer property out of the compensation pool, subject to rules framed under the Act. Sub-section (1)(a) of said section which is relevant for disposal of the case in hand, is reproduced as follows:- Section 20. Power to transfer property out of the compensation pool:- (1) Subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, the managing officer or managing corporation may transfer any property out of the compensation pool- (a) by sale of such property to a displaced person or any association of displaced persons, whether incorporated or not, or to any other person, whether the property . is sold by public auction or otherwise." 9. A bare perusal of the copy of Missal Hakiat Bandobast Jadid for the year 1987-88, available in the file of Naib-Tehsildar (Sales), clearly shows that the land in question was recorded in the ownership column as "Arazi Matruka" (means the land of a deceased).. Although the sale certificate clearly mention khasra no. is sold by public auction or otherwise." 9. A bare perusal of the copy of Missal Hakiat Bandobast Jadid for the year 1987-88, available in the file of Naib-Tehsildar (Sales), clearly shows that the land in question was recorded in the ownership column as "Arazi Matruka" (means the land of a deceased).. Although the sale certificate clearly mention khasra no. 236,263,264,265, area measuring 0-74-91 hectares (7491 sq.mtrs)as anevacuee property vested in the custodian department under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, which could have been dealt With under the provisions of the Act. Even if the land in question is an 'evacuee property, in that situation the perusal of order dated 3.12.2011, passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation, and case file of N.T.(sales), Shimla reveals that the N.T.(Sales) has transferred the land in question in favour of the present petitioner without following the procedure prescribed under the law. Through this modus operandi, the N.T.(Sales) has legalised the encroachment on evacuee land, whereas the Act nowhere provides for such regularisation of encroachments on evacuee property. Contrary to this Section 19(2)(b) of the Act, ibid clearly states that where any person is in unauthorized possession of any evacuee property or any other immovable property forming part of the Compensation pool, he shall after giving reasonable opportunity, be evicted from such land, relevant sub-section (2)(b) and (3) of said section are reproduced, as follows: S. 19. Power to vary or cancel lease or allotment of any property acquired under this Act:- (1) XXX (2) Where any person (a) XXX (b) is otherwise in unautorised possession of any evacuee property or any other immovable property forming part of the compensation pool, he shall, after he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his eviction from such property, surrender possession of the property on demand being made in this behalf by the managing officer or managing corporation or by any other person duly authorised by such officer or corporation. (3) If any person fails to surrender possession of any property on demand made under sub-section (2), the managing officer or managing corporation mat, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law of the time being in force, eject such person and take possession of such property and may, for such propose, use or cause to be used such forces as may be necessary. 10. 10. The perusal of the record of the N.T. (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, clearly shows that the Managing Officer (N.T. Sales) has not even bothered to ascertain the eligibility/ entitlement of present petitioner for allotment of land under the Act. Even if this is considered as a case of allotment, the procedure prescribed under the Law has not been followed by the Managing Officer (N.T. Sales) before making such allotment. In the instant case, the Naib-Tehsildar (Sales), without caring for the law, devised his own mode of transfer of the land, and as has also been observed by the CSC, the possibility of connivance of the. petitioner with the Government functionaries cannot be ruled out. The Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his impugned order has rightly observed that the procedure laid down in the Act/Rules has not been followed by the Managing Officer-cum-(N.T. Sales). It is quite shocking to see that an area measuring 0-74-91 hect.(approximately 10-0 bighs) has been transferred merely for a consideration amounting to Rs. 750/- that too in the year 1994. Further more, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of order dated 10.4.2008, passed by the Honble High Court in CWP no. 421/2006, as a matter of right, because the said order of the Honble High Court is totally based upon the statement of the Id. Advocate General, H.P. in that particular case and as such same cannot be made applicable in each and every case of encroachment. Further, the Honble High Court is monitoring encroachment on Forest and Govt., land and has ordered several evictions. Encroachment over evacuee property falls in same genre. Moreover, the decision of Honble Court being per incuriam, encroachments over evacuee property cannot be regularised in any manner. Since, the Managing Officer has committed serious irregularity and impropriety by regularising the encroachment of present petitioner on the evacuee land, the Chief Settlement Commissioner has rightly invoked the powers vested under him under section 24 of the Act, and has rightly cancelled the conveyance deed vide impugned order dated 3.12.2011, to protect the basic intention and spirit of the Act. Further Rule 92(4) authorises the Chief Settlement Commissioner to set aside any sale where fraud has been committed in the conduct of the sale. Further Rule 101 clearly states that the N.T.(Sales) is competent to sell any evacuee property only in pursuance if any general or special order issued by the Chief settlement Commissioner. Further Rule 92(4) authorises the Chief Settlement Commissioner to set aside any sale where fraud has been committed in the conduct of the sale. Further Rule 101 clearly states that the N.T.(Sales) is competent to sell any evacuee property only in pursuance if any general or special order issued by the Chief settlement Commissioner. And, no such authorisation was ever given to the N.T. (Sales) and he has suo moto evolved his own procedure. 11. In view of the above observations, the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed and the orders passed by the Id. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation, H.P. dated 3.12.2011, being in consonance with the provisions of law are upheld, and the revision petition is dismissed. 12. However, since, the petitioner has stated that he has constructed a residential house over the land in dispute as has also been claimed in other similar cases before this court, it would be proper to write to the ACS-cum-Financial Commissioner (Revenue), to formulate a policy to settle such genuine cases, at least to regularise the constructed area, in the interest of justice. A copy of this order be sent to the ACS-cum-F.C. (Rev) to the Government of H.P. for consideration. 13. Order be communicated to the parties. The records of the courts below be returned and the file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.