Appellant, an evacuee from West Pakistan owned agricultural lrnd in DlstrictLyallpur. As a displaced person he was·allotted a little more than six standard acress of land iri Village Kotla, Tehsil J ulJundur in Punjab under the quasi-permanent scheme. In 195:2 the Director of Rehabilitation ,snbn:iitted a propo?al to the Financial Commissioner, Relief and Rehabilitation-cum-Custodian that premium cut of. 5 villages, viz., Sufi Pind, Obin, Barring Khusropur and Alladinpur be enhanced from 18.3/4% to 50% as similarly situated .villages near Jullundm City carried a cut of 50%. This proposal also suggested that . in two other neighbouring villages, viz., Shekhpind and Kotla where· no premium cut had been applied· earlier, a similar cut of 50% should be applied. This was on the footing that these lands abutted the Jullundur Mi.micipalarea and had semi"urban character: This proposal :was accepted by the Commissioner as also by the Governor of the State "before 2nd July !952 when rule 14 (6) ·of the Evacuee Property (Central) .Rules, 1950 was amended and in respect of qua_si-permanent allottces cancellation ,;,as permitted only on grounds set out in rule 14(6). The allottees of Sheikh P;;1d 0 and Kotla.villages challenge:! .the orders implementing the policy decisio~. of cut of 50% Lefore the hierarchy of rehabilitation authorities and moved the Eigh Court by filing a writ petition. When .that writ petition was dismissed, special leai<e was obtained from this Court and the Court found that after comi 11g into force of the 1954 Act and the Notification made on March ·.24, 1955, under s. 12 of the Act,.the lands 1lready allotted to displaced persons ceased to be evacuee.property arid !iad becom~ part of the pool created .under the I 9§4 Act. Power was not a'"ilabie to be exercised · under the 1950 Act. •
