Rehabilitation Scheme

Area allotted to petitioners/mortgagees cancelled from their name on ground that mortgage money had not been deposited in respect of mortgaged units

Disputed area was confirmed to respondents but was later on cancelled on ground that they were not sitting allottees whereas petitioners were sitting allottees in Chak and that claim of petitioners was to be satisfied first and thereafter if any area was left same could be considered to satisfy claim of respondents

Re vision filed by respondent against said order was allowed by Settlement Commissioner on ground that no proposal was made on Khata of petitioners, nor any proof had been given for depositing mortgage money by petitioners and that no appeal was even filed by petitioners against confirmation order in respect of disputed area in favour of contesting respondents

Petitioners had n .x bt en able to furnish any proof of having made payment

Held, since paragraph 8-A of Chapter II of Rehabilitation Scheme had not fixed a certain time for option to pay mortgage money, petitioners were not disentitled to retain area in dispute on mere technical ground

Contention of counsel for respondents that under said para 8-A, mortgage money was to be paid by a certain' date failing which allotment was to be cancelled, was repelled

Proof in support of payment of mortgage money having been furnished for first time before High Court, it was a fit case to be remanded to Notified Officer who will decide revision petition afresh in accordance with law after taking into consideration effect of payment of mortgage money by petitioner

Order passed accordingly.

Holding of inquiry into hardship cases as provided in para. 29 of Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme or under deleted paragraph 52 of the Scheme-Settlement Authorities being not engaged in a judicial function and exercise for looking for an identifying exceptional hardship cases being not by its very nature a judicial function, strict rule of law of Evidence in S.78(6), held, would not apply to such an inquiry.

Claim of appellants transferred to estate in question long before claims of respondents were received by transfer from other areas

Perusal of instructions contained in Chapter I of Settlement Scheme Part II, principle of 'first come first served' appearing to be inherent in their application as requirement of fair play and equity

Such principle having held field for a long time, held, could not be departed from the detriment of a party

If matter of Proposal to settle claimants whose claims are received in a district is left entirely to relevant Settlement Authorities to choose claimants for purpose of settlement irrespective of date when their claims were received by transfer in district, it would only result in giving undue and arbitrary power to them which was not intention of statutory instructions

View taken by Single Judge of High Court, that orders passed by relevant Settlement Authorities

Art. 185(3)-Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched., para. 15 (3)-Leave to appeal granted to determine whether it was not a case more appropriate for remand to notified authority for recording a finding of fact afresh instead of High Court itself substituting its own finding.

Para. 29 and Correction Slip No. 2, p. 1, dated I 5th August, 1957Land, classification of -Land transferred to petitioner in lieu of his claim in 1959-Claim to be calculated on basis of classification of land contained in Correction Slip No. 2, p. 1, dated 15th August, 1957-Contention that correction slip withdrawn on 19th January, 1962, as such petitioner not entitled to any benefit of correction slip, held, had no force as allotment made when correction slip was in force.

S. 3 read with Rehabilitation Scheme, paras. 46 & 46-A-Devolution of property-Recorded owner of agricultural land in India migrating to Pakistan and allotted and confirmed agricultural land in Pakistan-Such person alienating land in favour of appellant after obtaining permission from Rehabilitation authorities-Order of Rehabilitation Commissioner directing mutation to be sanctioned in accordance with S. 3 of Act XLII of 1956 read with paras. 46 & 46-A of Rehabilitation Scheme, held, quite sound in circumstances.

-Sr. 2(1), 10 & 11 read with Rehabilitation Scheme, Part 1, para. 4-A-Objection raised .for first time in High Court but never before Settlement authorities-Objection also not seeming to have been pressed at hearing of case before High Court although allegedly advanced in arguments-Objection going to very jurisdiction of Settlement authority to entertain petition and plea requiring further consideration-Leave to appeal granted.-[Leave to appeal].