T.H.B. Chalapathi, J. - This writ petition has been filed for quashing order of respondent No. 3 alloting the land in question to respondents 4 and 5 and confirmed by respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner claims that he has been in possession of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 6, 15, 16, 24/2 and 25 in village Kalyana, Tehsil Dadri since 1947 as a lessee and that he applied to Tehsildar (Sale), Bhiwani, respondent No. 3 to transfer the land to him at the reserved price according to rules. Respondent No. 3 without passing any order on the application of the petitioner, allotted the land to respondents 4 and 5 by his order dated 7.7.1966. Thereafter, these petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Sales) who dismissed the appeal on 29.12.1966. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who dismissed the revision by his order dated 2.4.1974. Thereafter, the petitioner approached respondent No. 1 who by his order dated 29.10.1980 dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. Then, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to quash the orders of respondents 1 to 3 and to direct respondents 1 to 3, to transfer the land to him. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, he is a displaced person and that the property is urban agricultural land and, therefore, under rule 34(c) of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, the petitioner is entitled to the allotment of land in question, while it is argued by the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana that the petitioner is not a displaced person and that the property is not situated in an urban area and, therefore, Rule 34(c) of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation), Rules, 1955, the petitioner is entitled to the allotment of land in question, while it is argued by the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana that the petitioner is not a displaced person and that the property is not situated in an urban area and, therefore, Rule 34(c) of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation), Rules, 1955 is not applicable to the facts of the case. 4. It is not necessary to go into the question, whether the petitioner is a displaced person or the property is situated in an urban area. Suffice to say that according to the petitioner, he is in possession of the property since 1947 and than none of the authorities controverted this fact when the petitioner has been in possession of the property since 1947, there is no reason for the authorities to allot the property to others ignoring the claims of the petitioner. In fact, the application of the petitioner for transfer and allotment of the land in his name was pending with respondent No. 3 when he allotted the land to respondents 4 and 5. At no stage of the proceedings, respondents 4 and 5 appeared before the authorities to substantiate their claim. It is evident from the record that from 1947 onwards, the petitioner has been continuing in possession of the land till today. Respondents 1 to 3 have not been able to show, how respondents 4 and 5 have been given preferential treatment, particularly when the petitioner had been in possession of the property even before the allotment in favour of respondents 4 and 5 has been made. On a consideration of the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that respondents should have considered allotment and transfer of the land in favour of the petitioner, particularly when the possession was not delivered to respondents 4 and 5. 5. Accordingly, I set aside the orders of respondents No. 3 allotting the land to respondents 4 and 5 and consequently, the orders of respondents No. 1 to 3 are also set aside. Respondents 1 to 3 are hereby directed to consider the transfer of the land to the petitioner at the prevailing rate, according to rules. Order accordingly.