Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme No. II

2011 SCMR 1978 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Part-II, Para. 52Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)Decree of civil courtEntitlement of decree holderNew factScope

Claim of predecessor-in-interest of respondents was based on a judgment and decree dated 10-4-1946, in a pre-emption suit pursuant to which he had deposited decretal amount on 21-5-1946

Application filed by predecessor-in-interest of respondents was allowed by Notified Officer and order was passed to implement the decree

Plea raised by petitioners was that predecessor-in-interest of respondents did not deposit decretal amount and only Zar-e-Panjam was deposited

Validity

Petitioners urged certain facts first time in the constitutional jurisdiction and assailed judgment and decree on which respondents' claim was based on altogether new ground; it was late in the day for petitioners to take up a new ground in constitutional jurisdiction for the first time

Issue raised was a question of fact which had to have been raised before Notified Officer

Notified Officer having considered the submissions made and examined the record had come to the conclusion that decretal amount was duly deposited on 21-5-1946 to which no exception could be taken

Even otherwise if Zar-e-Panjam was added to the amount which according to petitioners was the only amount deposited by predecessor-in-interest of respondents then total amount deposited would be around the decretal amount

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Notified Officer and judgment passed by High Court in favour of respondents

Leave to appeal was refused.

2001 SCMR 1493 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme No. IIPara. 24Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, para.20Temporary allotment, cancellation ofDelayed confirmation of claim by Central Record OfficeEffect

Where temporary allottee was not responsible for the delay and the allottee was found entitled for the land in question, cancellation of the temporary allotment could not be made without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the allottee.

1986 MLD 2303 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 10Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, Part II, paras. 64 & 68-Allotment of landArea proposed to be allotted to one party

In absence of revocation or cancellation of such proposal, such land, held, would not be available for disposal by way of sale.

1983 SCMR 480 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 185(3) read with Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 10 and Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme No. II- Land in excess of entitlement of petitioner already allotted to some other claimant - Order of Settlement Authority that allotment of such excess land to claimant cannot be disturbed at late stage upheld by High Court as being just, fair and equitable-No interference called for.

1982 PLD 43 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

APara. 14

Excess allotment-Surrender-Allottee selling out a portion of allotted land to appellants-Subsequent investigation revealing allotment having been made in excess of entitlement, hence, claim revivified and excess area ordered to be resumed

Allottee given choice, surrendering land sold to appellant and land purchased by appellants consequently cancelled from allottee's name-Allottee offering to refund purchase money to appellants but such offer declined-Contention : Allottee not entitled to make choice in matter of surrender of excess land and such choice even if possible allottee not entitled to same because of his fraud