Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme 1956

2003 SCMR 1221 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Para. 10West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme 1956. para. 55-AConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)

Border Area Committee, after appreciating and evaluating the evidence of parties, had come to the conclusion that the petitioner, who was a local, had obtained the allotment of the property fraudulently under a pseudo name by claiming himself to be a displaced person

Findings of fact recorded by the Committee were upheld by High Court both under Constitutional jurisdiction and in letters patent appeal

Petitioner had failed to persuade that the findings of fact recorded by the Border Area Committee and the High Court could not possibly have been recorded on the basis of the evidence of the parties

Supreme Court, in the absence any exceptional circumstances, ordinarily would not substitute findings of fact recorded by the High Court on the basis of material on record

­Petition for leave to appeal as dismissed.

2003 CLC 936 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 4West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, 1956, paras. 4-A and 31, cl.(ix)Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S.114Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9 and O.II, R.2Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42

Conferment of ownership rights on petitioners'predecessor in year 1952 in respect of land, over which he was earlier occupancy tenant under non-Muslim landlord

Respondent got allotment of such land in year 1962 as claimant displaced persons, when same was not part of compensation pool and could not be treated as evacuee

Petitioners'predecessor filed suit against respondents confining his claim only to 1/6th share in produce, but did not agitate against allotment

Such suit was withdrawn later on with permission to file fresh suit

Petitioners challenged original allotment in favour of respondents by filing suit for declaration in year 1980

Trial Court dismissed the suit, which judgment was upheld by the Appellate Court

Validity

Allotment in favour of respondents was invalid

Petitioners having full knowledge about such allotment had not challenged same by asserting their ownership right at appropriate time before proper forum under evacuee laws

Petitioners had not filed fresh suit till 1980

Petitioners were not permitted to sleep over their right and to choose their own time and form for challenging allotment on the ground that same was void and thus no limitation would run against them

Suit was barred by time

Order II. R.2. C.P.C. would also be applicable to the present case precluding petitioners to claim relief relinquished voluntarily by their predecessor

Where jurisdiction of Civil Court was expressly barred under special law, after repeal of such law civil Court would have no jurisdiction, even if orders were without jurisdiction

Judgments of Courts below was not suffering from any error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction

High Court dismissed revision petition in circumstances.

1992 CLC 372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme 1956 Para. 3Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199Allotment of land in lieu of verified claimPart of land deemed to be in excess of entitlement, was cancelled on basis of a Mukhbari applicationValidity

Land in excess of petitioner's entitlement was not allotted to him on the ground of fraud or false representation but due to miscalculations committed by Settlement Officer who passed the allotment order

Order of Settlement Authority relating to resumption of excess land and allotment thereof, in favour of Mukhbar could not be sustained

Quantum of excess land would be determined in accordance with para. 3, Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme 1956 and excess land would be allowed to be retained by petitioner against price to be determined by concerned officer.

1992 MLD 1166 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme 1956Para. 15Joint Khatas of Muslims and non-MuslimsPartition

Competent Rehabilitation Authority could partition joint Khatas 6f Muslims and non-Muslims where there was no Hissadari Qabza, and allot evacuee area of partitioned land to the claimant under Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme 1956.

1990 SCMR 1677 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.4Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, 1956, para.46Rejection of plaintPlaintiffs'entitlement to any relief as grand children of deceased who owned evacuee property

Parties'counsel were in agreement in one aspect that as the matter stood at present it could not be said with certainty that plaintiffs had no cause of action at all for examination in a full fledged trial even if the trial involved only legal issues and that it was not such a case in which plaint should have been rejected under O.VII, R.11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Supreme Court after hearing both sides on ancillary issues deemed it fit to remand the case to trial Court with direction so as to allay apprehension of plaintiffs that the matter would be tried as a regular suit and that plaint was neither liable to be rejected under O.VII, R.11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, nor it would now be rejected under said provision

Parties would be afforded full opportunity of trial on all issues in controversy

Judgment of Trial Court as also judgment of High Court impugned in present appeal would not influence fresh trial and fresh decision

Case was remanded to trial Court.

1990 SCMR 1618 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme 1956,Papas. 7 & 9Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)

Leave to appeal was granted to examine contention of appellants that High Court had erred in holding that appellants' predecessor's application for condoning the delay in filing appeal had been illegally allowed

Such finding was based on a misreading of evidence and in any event question whether delay was fit to be condoned or not was a mixed question of fact and law within the discretion of the Settlement Authorities, High Court had usurped jurisdiction by interfering with concurrent findings of Settlement Authorities, and also whether judgment under appeal was based on a misreading of relevant instructions which had the force of law.

1990 SCMR 1017 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.10Rehabilitation and Settlement Schcme,1956, para. 68Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)Allotment of landEntitlement

Land in question was initially proposed in favour of respondents but ultimately was proposed in favour of petitioners and confirmed

High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction, found that under para. 68, Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, Settlement Authority was under obligation to have confirmed the proposal that remained pending in favour of respondents for a number of years and thus accepted respondents'Constitutional petition

Leave to appeal

Petitioners'contention that respondents got their claim transferred and obtained allotment else where, was not urged before High Court

Settlement Authority, in fact, had recorded a finding to the contrary

Petitioners thus, could not be allowed to rake up a factual controversy which had been determined and buried long past

High Court's view, that proposal for allotment in respondents'favour was made much earlier and that required to be confirmed under law, was perfectly right and in accordance with law

Leave was refused.

1989 MLD 916 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme 1956Para. 46-ASuccessionShariat Law

Succession to heirs of transferee under Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, 1956 to be deemed to open out on termination of widow=s limited interest to all persons who would have been entitled to inherit property at time of death of full male owner

Property would devolve upon such persons as would have been entitled to succeed under Shariat Law upon death of last full owner had the Shariat Law been applicable at the time of his death-Order passed by Settlement Authorities being not in accordance with Rules on the subject, such order was set aside and case remanded for decision by Notified officer m accordance with law.

1988 SCMR 1228 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Para.4-AConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)Allotment of land to Jammu and Kashmir refugees

Petitioner's counsel being unable to point out that land previously allotted to petitioner, Jammu and Kashmir refugee, had been further allotted to any body else, provision of para. 4-A had no application to case

Allotment made to Jammu and Kashmir refugees also not shown to be heritable

Petition for leave to appeal being without any force dismissed.

1988 SCMR 785 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.10Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, 1956, Part II, para. 3(2) read with Memo. dated 12-4-1963

Predecessor of respondents allotted four acres of land under the Minimum Four Acres Allotment Scheme against his true entitlement of 1.32 acres abandoned by him in India-Area given in excess of entitlement was to be held on temporary basis which could be purchased by said claimant at such rates and in accordance with such terms and conditions to be fixed eventually-Respondents not having exercised option to purchase the excess area within the prescribed time, such excess area resumed and re-allotted to predecessor of appellant

Matter having ultimately come before it in constitutional petition, High Court holding that the terms of para. 2 of Memorandum dated 12-4-1963 providing that if any claimant does not exercise his option to purchase excess land by the prescribed date, excess area in his possession shall be resumed did not imply that the claimant ipso facto incurred the liability of resumption of the exc

1986 MLD 420 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.10 & 11Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme (1956), para. 4-A (ix)Jammu-Kashmir refugeesTemporary allotment of land for maintenanceEntitlement

Petitioner admittedly was, claimant displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir who had abandoned considerable landed property there

Petitioners' claims for agricultural land was duly verified by Claims Organisation and entitlement certificate was issued-Probe into validity of temporary allotment of land in question in favour of petitioner for purpose of maintenance was made by department and petitioners were found eligible for that

Petitioner as temporary allottee was in possession of land in question since 1950

Petitioner, held, was legally entitled to allotment of land in question for satisfaction of his verified claims in circumstances.

1985 CLC 2647 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme 1956Para. 46'Will'Effectiveness of

Will executed by testator in 1944-Subject-matter of will (agricultural land) had been abandoned by testator in India 4 months prior to his death in Pakistan

Subject-matter of Will having been left in India was no more under disposing power of testator

Will, held, had lost its effectiveness and could not be implemented in any manner on death of testator

Heirs of testator could only be dealt with in accordance with paragraph 46, Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, 1956.

1981 SCMR 947 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Para. 27"Statutory refugees"-Lands of respondents though on Pakistan side of border but being situated on bank of river, which constantly shifted its course, respondents given status of "statutory refugee" under para. 27 of Scheme when affected by river action-Once respondents allotted evacuee property on such basis and properly settled on such lands, they, held, could not be shifted back to their original land if by vagaries of nature land originally occupied by them re-appeared. Amjad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both C. P. S. L. As.).

1980 CLC 1241 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Para. 29-Excess land, allotment of-Settlement Commissioner after consultation of record, recalculation of Produce Index Units got in presence of petitioners and hearing them, holding petitioners having been allotted land in excess of their entitlement and concurring with findings of Additional Settlement Commissioner-Order an findings of fact passed by Settlement Commissioner, held, neither violative of para. 29 of Scheme nor suffering from any legal infirmity so as to attract extraordinary jurisdiction for interference Petitioners allotted excess land on basis of entries in Khasra Gardawari contrary to entries existing in special Jamabandis Settlement authorities, held, rightly ordered allotment to be made on basis of entries in special Jamabandis.

1975 SCMR 495 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Pare. 4-A (ix)

Central Government not precluded from modifying existing Settlement Scheme for rehabilitation and settlement of displaced persons according to exigencies of situation-Government lying down upper limits for ad hoc allotments and thereby reducing permissible limits for different categories of displaced persons because of quality of lands in different localities-Government, held, empowered to revise policy according to exigencies of situations.

1969 PLD 480 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 2 (3) and Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, 1956, Part I, Chapter 1, Para. 1, Cl. (i), and Supplementary Rural Scheme,. Para. 1 (b) and Supplementary Urban scheme Supplementary Scheme No. II), Para. 2 (3)-"Land"-Nature of Depends upon direct purpose for which property was occupied by owner at time of Independence i.e. before 15-8-1947.