Rural Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme
Rural Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Paras. 3 & 13-Rural Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, para. 14(1), (2)-Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 10 - Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 250 - Martial Law (Pending Proceedings and Protection) Order (26 of 1962), Art. 7 - Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199Allotment of land obtained against bogus claims-M. K. and others obtaining allotment of lands by fraudulent means against bogus claims, selling some of the land to respondents and later submitting requisite declaration under para. 3 of M: L. R. 49Such allotments consequently cancelled by Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner and M. K. and his accomplice, having failed to account for benefits received from ill-gotten gains, sale of land prosecuted undor para. 13 of M. L. R, 49, convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonments, fine and confiscation of lands in dispute - Martial Law Administrator, however, while confirming sentences, excluding five (out of ten) Khatas of land standing in names of alienees
"Rural Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3554
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Rural Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme"
P L D 1987 Supreme Court 297
NUSRAT ALI SHAH AND OTHERS‑Appellants Versus AMIR AND OTHERS‑Respondents
Court:1983 S C M R 385
HAKIM ALI AND OTHERS-Appellants Versus FAZAL DIN AND owns-Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1980 Quetta 47
Syed HADI HUSSAIN SHAH-Applicant Versus MALIK SHAH AND 3 others-Respondents
Court:1987 S C M R 2059
IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN and others‑‑Appellants Versus Mian IRSHAD ALI and others‑‑Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1982 Lahore 831
Before Ghazanfar Ali Gondal and Fazal‑i‑Mahmood, JJ Versus SARDAR IRSHADUL HASSAN AND 7 others ‑Respondents Writ Petition No. 1843/R of 1976, decided on 29th August, 1982.
Court: Art. 199 ‑‑ Writ ‑ Estoppel ‑ Petitioner cannot be allowed to reprobate what he bad approbated before Tribunal below.‑Estoppel.P L D 1972 Lahore 306
Mst. Hajan NAWAB BIBI‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT AUTHORITIES (SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER LANDS) LAHORE AND ANOTHERS‑Respondents
Court:1992 S C M R 827
ABDUR RAHIM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of PakistanP L D 1983 Lahore 61
ALI BAKHSH-Appellant Versus Mst. ZOHRA ASHRAF-Respondent
Court: -- S. 20(1) read with memo. No. 2585-63/4246-R (W), dated 26-6-.1963 & Supplementary Settlement Scheme No. II, para. 24-Review-High Court giving finding that if Chief Settlement Commissioner did not choose to withdraw case from High Court, such Court would have itself come to same conclusion as arrived at by Chief Settlement Commissioner and would have granted necessary relief to respondent therein and in view of such finding question of limitation inconsequential-Quasi-permanent allotment of land having been made to respondents prior to 12-9-1960 (date of prosecution of revision petition before Chief Settlement Commissioner) respondents although necessary parties to such revision petition but not impleaded, hence order passed without hearing respondents an ex parte order and could not be regarded as final order qua respondents - Chief Settlement Commissioner on coming to know such order being passed ex parte desiring to consider matter afresh after hearing respondents hence in setting aside earlier view, tentatively expressed by his predecessor, Chief Settlement Commissioner did not review his predecessor's order.-Review.1987 C L C 1026
ASHRAF HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus M. A. HAQ and others‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore1986 S C M R 1147(2)
UMAR DIN — Petitioner Versus CHHAJJU and others — Respondents
Court: High Court