Law:

Section:

(a) Settlement Scheme No. VIII - Read with notifications dated 7th April 1960 and 28th July 1960 Contention that application for transfer of property in lieu of property cancelled, after having been earmarked, should be moved before Deputy Settlement Commissioner and not to Settlement Commissioner or any other authority and that Settlement Commi3sioner having been directly approached, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner could not transfer property to respondent on his telephonic direction-Deputy Settlement Commissioner being entitled to transfer property in lieu of property earmarked to respondent, requesting Settlement Commis sioner to transfer some property to respondent, respondent selecting property on being required but not being available such property not transferred, respondent approaching Settlement Commissioner and Settlement Commissioner ordering Deputy Settlement Commis sioner to transfer some property to respondent-No irregularly, held, committed in procedure adopted-Mere defect in procedure, how ever, can not invalidate Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order transferring property to respondent after ascertaining her right to transfer-Procedure for applying to Deputy Settlement Commis sioner in such cases-Merely directory. (b) Settlement Scheme No. VIII Chap. VIII, Chap. I, S. l(a)-"Available property"-Means pro . perty not transferred to any person or such as may in future be available for transfer on resumption-Property in dispute already standing transferred to respondent, orders rejecting petitioner's L H forms, held, valid.-[Words and phrases]. Date of hearing : 21st October 1975.                                                                                                                                      JUDGMENT The petitioner has assailed the order dated 30th September 1968, passed by the…