A.P. Sen, J.
1. Heard on the question of admission. In support of the petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner, bas raised two prints, namely, (i) the Authorised Settlement Commissioner bad not before him complete record of the case before passing the impugned order setting aside the substitution of the name of the petitioner as an L.R. to the extent of his 2978/4703 share and, therefore, the order is vitiated, and (ii) the revision filed by the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 Sardar Singh sod Met. Bishnu Kaur were not competent as their remedy against the order of the Managing Officer lay by any of an appeal under Section 22. There failure to file such an appeal has rendered the order of the Managing Officer final. There is no substance in any of these contentions.
2. the Only point for consideration before the Authorised Settlement Commissioner was the question of substitution of the names, of L.Rs. of Isbwar Singh. The learned Authorised Settlement Commissioner has mentioned that though the entire record of the case had not been received the file relating to the substitution proceedings had been Bent by the Managing Officer. That was the relevant file in question. The Authorised Settlement Commissioner had, therefore, before him all the papers necessary for dismissal of the revision. The impugned order passed by him, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity.
3. The contention that no revision lay under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, because Section 22 of the Act provides for an appeal, can hardly be accepted. Under Section 22 of the Act, an appeal lies only against the final order of the Managing Officer. The word 'order' appearing in Section 22 must in the context mean a official order, and not an interlocutory order. The remedy of the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 was, therefore, to not a revision the language of Section 24 of the Act is wide enough to enable the Authorised Settlement Commissioner to entertain such a revision.
4. Even if the word 'order' in Section 22 were to be interpreted so as to include interlocutory orders, that would not prevent the exercise of revisions jurisdiction under Section 24. Unlike Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 24 is not subject to any limitation.
5. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected summarily.