Settlement Scheme No. I

"Notified Officer" under S. 2, Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 could deal with such cases, which were pending adjustment before different forums of competent jurisdiction, where claim-had not been finally adjusted by assessing in juxtaposition, to the context whether finality could be attached to inherently defective order passed by authority having absolutely no jurisdiction, completely misconstruing the legal and factual aspects by violently contravening law or rules, applicable at the relevant time

Settlement authorities, generally speaking, become bereft of jurisdiction to deal with the property after the issuance of a valid

Where agreement of association was arrived at between the parties with regard to surrender of rights in property, recording of statements of parties by Settlement Authority was a condition precedent for acceptance of said agreement of association and if statements of parties were not so recorded, no agreement existed in eyes of law.

Application of allotment of the property in the name of appellants was pending when Martial Law Regulation No.118 was promulgated

School was nationalized under para. 5 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 118 and the management of the school was taken over by the Education Department of the Government

Settlement Authorities replaced the name of the original management with that of the Education Department and the property was allotted in the name of the Department instead of the appellants

Such allotment was assailed by the appellants- before High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction which was dismissed by the High Court

Contention of the appellants was that since all formalities regarding allotment were complete, the property should have been transferred in the name of the appellants and not in the name of the Department

Validity

Central Government/the Chief Settlement Commissioner was authorised under S.10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, to dispose of the property out of compensation pool

Chief Settlement Commissioner or any other officer authorized by him was empowered to transfer/dispose of any property out of compensation pool on evaluation basis or by sale or by means of auction or otherwise in accordance with the Schedule to Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958

High Court with sound and cogent reasons had dealt with all aspects of the case

Judgment passed by'the High Court neither suffered from any flaw or legal infirmity nor there was any question of public importance as contemplated under Art.185(3) of the Constitution

Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by High Court

Appeal was dismissed.

Claim of plaintiff was that suit house was exclusively in possession of father of plaintiff since 1942 till his death in year 1952, that father of plaintiff paid rent of house to Rehabilitation Department, that after death of his father plaintiff continued to occupy half portion of house

Plaintiff had further submitted that his father brought the defendant in the house and allowed him to occupy remaining half portion of the house as licensee, but defendant got house transferred in his favour fraudulently by submitting form and obtaining P.T.O. and P.T.D. in his favour

Trial Court decreed suit holding that plaintiff in fact was legal transferee of house under Settlement Scheme No. 1 and that P. T. O. and P.T.D. issued in favour of defendant were void being result of fraud and forgery, but Appellate Court reversed findings of Trial Court

Evidence on record had proved that plaintiff was old tenant and he being local had filed L.H. Form for transfer of house in his name

Under Settlement Scheme No.1 a local in possession of property was entitled to transfer of that property and that transfer in favour of plaintiff had been established

No counter-evidence was on record to suggest that defendant was in possession of house as a local

Defendant in circumstances had .no right to seek transfer of house in his name under Settlement Scheme No.1 especially when not only he was not proved being in possession of house, but he had not paid any rent prior to 1959

Fraud and forgery on part of defendant/respondent having positively been discernible from evidence, conclusions drawn by Appellate Court below were incorrect

Plaintiff through his suit had sought declaration that P. T. O. and P. T. D. procured by defendant was result of fraud and forgery and plaintiff also had prayed for right of transfer of house in his favour

Civil Court being a Court of plenary jurisdiction, question of fraud and forgers. was determinable only by Civil Court, particularly in Settlement- cases where after repeal of Settlement Laws no other forum was available for adjudicating such- dispute

Notified Officer appointed under Repeal Act, did not possess jurisdiction to declare P. T. O. and P. T. D. as illegal, null and void on ground of fraud and forgery

Contention that Civil Court had no jurisdiction in matter was repelled, in circumstances

Fraud and forgery having been alleged in case, Trial Court had rightly held that time could be computed from date of knowledge of fraudulent transaction

Suit, in circumstances, was not barred by time

Judgment of Appellate Court below suffered with material irregularity and Appellate Court neither applied law correctly nor evidence was properly appreciated

Judgment and decree of Appellate Court below were set aside and that of Trial Court were restored.

Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had not made full payment for excess area transferred to him over and above three times the plinth area

Only on the basis of memo. issued in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner they had claimed right over the excess area in their possession

Authorities issued revised policy and said memo. was rescinded

Validity

Where full payment was not made, the transfer of excess area was not allowed to stand

Merely with the issuance of memo. no indefeasible right had accrued in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners

Inchoate offer contained in the memo. was dependent upon fulfillment of the condition of payment of price which had neither been acted upon nor carried into effect

Memo. was legitimately rescinded and withdrawn

Permanent Transfer Deed issued in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners did not include the excess/extra land

High Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Authorities in circumstances.

Provision of para.17 of Settlement Scheme No.I required that pending decision of allotment of property, transfer of such property was to be postponed.

On pointation of mistaken entries in Permanent Transfer Deed in respect of portion in disputed property, other transferees of respective portions of property applied for demarcation of their portions

Settlement Authorities corrected entries in Permanent Transfer Deed and other relevant record

Orders passed by Settlement Authorities were interfered with by High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction holding that Settlement Authorities could not make any adjustment in record after issuance of Permanent Transfer Deed

Validity

Settlement Authorities had corrected entries holding that a clerical mistake had been committed in Permanent Transfer Deed earlier issued in favour of respondents

Settlement Authorities in correcting mistakes in Permanent Transfer Deed had proceeded on solid grounds

Orders of Settlement Authorities having not been shown to be suffering from any jurisdictional error, same should have been maintained by High Court

Maintaining "settlement record" by removing any number of inaccuracies therein having crept in for no fault of litigants, could be upheld

If respondents had tricked Settlement Department into obtaining excess portion including part of portion of other transferees, same would have been a fit subject for being excised by all concerned, ex debito justitiae

Order of High Court was set aside by Supreme Court in circumstances.

Grant of building of transfer of adjoining land was contrary to essential requirement contained in relevant Settlement Scheme

Surplus piece/area of land with the house could not be claimed without proper determination of price by Competent Authority

Failure to produce valid order regarding assessment of value for excess land clearly tended to draw adverse inference against the claimant

Original transfer of excess land with him being on account of total misconception, and by Authority having no jurisdiction, same was ab initio void

Whole structure constructed on such void order or action completely falls through and concept of finality ceases to be operative

Legal position is the light of uncontroverted facts cannot be challenged merely on technicalities

Claimants thus had obtained surplus land and other areas with the house illegally and by manipulation from forum which under law at relevant time had no jurisdiction

Property in question, on the date of Repealing Act, within the purview of S. 3 (1) of the said Act, therefore, was. "available for disposal" and had not been validly transferred to claimants or anyone else.

Leave to appeal was granted to consider, inter alia, whether after issuance of P.T.D., Settlement Tribunal or Notified Officer had jurisdiction to issue notice to resume property in question; and whether such property could still be resumed.

Dispute relating to identification of evacuee property decreed in favour of plaintiffs by all the Courts below including the High Court

Validity

Leave to appeal was granted on the ground that on physical identification of property in question, evidence had not been legally appraised in such a manner as acceptable, at judicial trial

Two properties were said to belong to two different evacuees in two separate wards of urban area having no connection whatsoever

Material on record, however, showed that disputed portion was structurally a part of the same building or adjacent thereto

In resolving such controversy plan of property in terms of para. 13, High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vo1.I, Chap. 1-G, should have been got admitted or Local Commission appointed for identifying such property

Leave to appeal was granted to re-appraise evidence.

Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether order of remand passed by High Court had been properly complied with by Additional Settlement Commissioner; whether shops in occupation of petitioners was "available property" and petitioners were entitled to transfer of those shops under the Scheme; whether property marked in site plan had actually been transferred to respondent and whether he was entitled to its transfer; and whether Provisional Transfer Order produced by respondent before Additional Settlement Commissioner during argument of the case was not forged document, it having never seen light of the, day before it was produced.

Respondent's suit for permanent injunction against Cantonment Board for collection of car parking fee was dismissed and his appeal met the same fate

High Court in revision, however, decreed plaintiff's suit

Validity

Permanent Transfer Deed issued by Settlement Authorities showed that only evacuee rights and interest in respect of building were transferred to respondent, and there was no mention of compound of such building

Trial Court and Appellate Court had dismissed suit of respondent while High Court had, decreed his suit

Leave to appeal was granted to re-appraise evidence so as to determine whether compound of cinema alongwith building in question was, transferred to respondent.

Petitioner failed to deposit balance amount of 20 per cent. as per direction of Settlement Authority, resulting in cancellation of transfer of property in her favour

Petitioner was entitled to benefit of instalments which should have been extended to her in terms of para. 34, Settlement Scheme I which being a mandatory requirement, its benefit should have been extended to petitioner

Settlement Authority having failed to comply with legal requirements could not insist on transferee to strictly abide by the terms of payment

Order in question, whereby transfer of property in favour of petitioner was cancelled was not sustainable in circumstances.

Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the order of remand passed by High Court had been properly complied with by the Additional Settlement Commissioner; whether the shops in occupation of petitioners were available property within the meaning of Scheme for management and disposal of available properties and petitioners were entitled to the transfer of shops under the Scheme, whether the property specifically marked in the site plan had actually been transferred to respondent-transferee and whether he was entitled to its transfer; and whether the P.T.O. produced by transferee before Additional Settlement Commissioner during arguments of the case was not a forged document and whether it had ever seen light of the day before it was produced.

Transfer of house in favour of transferee was cancelled and house was available for transfer as transferee was unable to pay transfer price of house

House having become available for transfer, petitioner filed Form for its transfer, but despite submission of Form by petitioner, house was put to auction on the ground that form submitted -by petitioner was not available on record

Settlement Department was duty bound to consider Form filed by petitioner before placing house into auction pool

Department having failed to do so, entire proceedings regarding auction were nullity in eye of law.

Where house had been transferred to its transferee on basis of possession, number of that house assigned in documents of transfer, would lose significance as basis of transfer was possession over evacuee property and not its number

In circumstances, right vested in transferee of house in dispute under P.T.D. issued to him for that house, could not be defeated on basis of mistake, if any, in recording property number.

Auction in favour of transferee was confirmed and in pursuance of that P.T.O. was issued to transferee who paid transfer price and finally P.T.D. was also issued in his name

Property in question having already been transferred, same could not have been transferred to another person

Subsequent transfer of property in favour of other person was declared illegal, in circumstances.

Auction price of property in dispute having already been paid by auction-purchaser, direction of Authority to pay additional amount was illegal

Authority was directed to issue Transfer Order in favour of auction purchaser.

Acquiescence by a person who was in possession of same and who could have got declaration as to conversion of same into an industrial unit

Effect

Respondent, who was in occupation of property in question, had voluntraily and unilaterally come forward to attorn to appellant (auction-purchaser)

Respondent had done so in derogation of his subsisting rights in the property in question, although he had not been coerced to so attorn in favour of appellant

Statutory right of serving a notice and. getting a positive .response from respondent in favour of appellant had not till then been exercised; thus, a case of acquiescence, a surrender of the right and the claim over the property in question, had clearly been made out

Disposal of property in question, subsequent to auction of same ire favour of petitioner, thus, could not be objected to.

Fact that appellant's father was a transferee under Settlement Scheme No.I or his brother under Settlement Scheme No.VIII, would not be a ground for disentitling appellant, a claimant for residual property.

Leave to appeal was granted to examine, inter alia, whether Letters Patent Appeal Bench while interpreting para. 20, Settlement Scheme No.I read with Press Note dated 3-5-1960 of Chief Settlement Commissioner could set aside the order of Single Judge, whereunder matter was remanded to Settlement Authority for determination of the main point in controversy viz. whether the Form filed by appellants had been disposed of in accordance with law; and furthermore as to what was the correct interpretation of para. 20, Settlement Scheme No.l read with the said Press Note.

Transferee of a Chaubara cannot lay claim to the roofs of other properties claiming that they formed courtyard of Chaubara.

Question whether disputed portion of property was a part of `Chappar' transferred to predecessor-in-interest of petitioner and if not, was available for transfer to respondent was a question of fact which had thoroughly been examined by Settlement Authorities and decided in favour of respondents which was rightly not interfered with by High Court

Petition for leave to appeal having no merit for consideration was thus dismissed.

Court after hearing parties came to the conclusion that there was no fault or legal infirmity in well reasoned judgment of High Court

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed with observation that departments were left with no authority to cancel P.T.D. once issued and it was only Civil Court which could decide dispute between parties.

Para.29, Settlement Scheme No.1 provides that while allotting land to claimants classification of evacuee land as shown in special jamabandi had to be kept in view; whereas subsequent variation in the classification of soil was to be ignored

Where it was established beyond doubt that classification of disputed khasra number was Chahi Nehri, according to special Jamabandi, question of treating such land as a building site would not arise

Leave to appeal was granted to consider the classification of land in question, in accordance with law.

Petitioner contended that order of resumption of his duly allotted property was illegal as he had already paid entire price thereof and apart from that order of resumption was made without any notice to him

Contentions raised in support of petition needed examination, leave to appeal was granted.

Deputy Settlement Commissioner was required to fix amount of instalment to be paid in cash, if full price was not adjusted against compensation book

Transfer price, settlement fee and public dues which were to be paid by a non-claimant displaced person or local, could be paid either through adjustment in compensation books of associating claimants or in cash in twelve equal monthly instalments

Appellant could not press into service such procedure where he had not paid price of property iii spite of expiry of more than three years

If transfer in favour of appellants would have been cancelled within a period of twelve months which was the period available under para. 32, Settlement Scheme No.1, they could have legitimate grievance to agitate.

Transfer order in respect of property in dispute was passed m favour of transferee/landlord in 1965, but Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) was issued in 1980

Mere fact that P.T.D. was issued in 1980, would not lead to conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant came into existence between parties only on issuance of P.T.D. in 1980

Relationship of landlord and tenant had existed earlier when transfer order was passed in favour of transferee/landlord.

Finding recorded by Authorities that house in dispute was indivisible unit, being finding of fact, same could not be reopened in Constitutional jurisdiction by High Court.

Compensation book desposited by transferee of property in dispute for adjustment of balance price of property, was refused to be adjusted by Settlement Authority suspecting same being bogus without providing petitioner/transferee opportunity of being heard to explain his position

Chief Settlement Commissioner who was directed by Court to hold proper inquiry in the matter, failed to give any finding to the effect whether compensation book was bogus or not despite ample opportunity was given to him in that respect

Settlement Authorities refusing to adjust price from compensation book also at no stage recorded a finding that book was bogus

Mere fact that compensation book in question was attached with a criminal case, was not a valid ground for not adjusting compensation book particularly when according to a finding of fact recorded by Chief Settlement Commissioner himself accused was ultimately discharged in the said criminal case.

Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether a local could be transferred a shop as an unattractive evacuee property, if the same had been ordered to be disposed of in open auction, under the policy decision taken by Settlement Authorities on 18-9-1964.

Contention that Settlement Authority despite accepting agreement of association regarding transfer of property in dispute executed between petitioner and respondent, did not prepare P.T.O. in accordance with mode of transfer indicated in agreement

Mode of transfer of property as given in agreement having not been strictly adhered to by Settlement Authority and that aspect of case having also been ignored by High Court, contention raised by petitioner needed examination

Leave to appeal was granted.

Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the property which was disposed of in favour of petitioner in public auction was available property and could be transferred to respondent; whether provisions of para.20, Settlement Scheme No.1, created any right in favour of respondent; and whether auction in favour of petitioner was violative of para.20 of Chap. 3, Settlement Scheme No.1, and only the respondent was eligible to the transfer of property as it converted it into an industrial concern.

Transfer of property-Matter remaining under litigation for the last ten years between wife of petitioner and respondent who was the original transferee and was in possession of the property

Supreme Court, eventually remanded case

Tenor of Supreme Court order showed that in remand proceedings Deputy Settlement Commissioner was merely to consider entitlement of respondent inasmuch as Supreme Court itself held that wife of petitioner could not be deemed to be in possession of property in dispute and was not entitled to its transfer

Wife of petitioner never joined remand proceedings before Deputy Settlement Commissioner

Petitioner who challenged order passed in remand proceedings also never applied for being impleaded as a party nor he could do so under law but after Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed orders in said proceedings, petitioner intervened for the first time by making an application before Supreme Court that his NCH form under Settlement Schemes Nos. I and VIII be entertained as an informer-Settlement Commissioner rejected his application

Held, case before Settlement Commissioner arose out of remand by Supreme Court and petitioner not being a party in remand proceedings, and property in dispute having already been transferred to respondent and not available for transfer, N.C.H. Form of petitioner could not be entertained and was rightly rejected

Property was allowed to remain with respondent on basis of transfer already made in her favour due to her possession for a considerable long time.

Copy of deed of association attested by Oath Commissioner, cannot be approved by Deputy Settlement Commissioner unless non-production of original deed was accounted for.

Petitioner making interpolations in his C.S. form for transfer, approaching High Court with unclean hands and was thus disentitled to any relief

Finding of High Court in this behalf being unexceptionable, leave to appeal refused.

Submission of L.H. Form by petitioners for transfer-Application of provisions of paragraph 20 of Settlement Scheme No.1-Validity of

Leave to appeal granted to examine, inter alia whether the High Court while interpreting para 20 of the Settlement Scheme No.1 read with the Press Note dated 3-5-1960 (pages 139-141 of Settlement Manual, old edition) could set aside the order of Single Judge whereunder the matter was remanded to Settlement Authority for determination of the main point in controversy and what is the correct interpretation of para 20 of Settlement Scheme No.1 read with the aforesaid Press Note.

Question as to whether agreement of association executed between parties for payment of price of property transferred to petitioner was duly executed or it was bogus document, was in dispute before Deputy Settlement Commissioner who gave opportunity to parties to lead evidence in support of their respective pleas which they duly availed

Petitioner denying execution of agreement neither shown to have questioned jurisdiction of Deputy Settlement Commissioner to determine genuineness of agreement nor cited any authority to support his plea that said officer was not competent to go into question of genuineness or otherwise of agreement

Deputy Settlement Commissioner, held, was under obligation to resolve controversy one way or other byre passing any order accepting or rejecting same.

Property in dispute was permanently transferred to respondents/transferees on basis of deed of association, execution of which was denied by petitioner/claimant

Claimant approached Settlement Authorities merely for cancellation of deed, but Authorities refused to cancel same on ground that after issuance of P.T.D. to transferees, Authorities had become functus officio and had no power to hold any enquiry as to whether or not deed of association was a forged document

Claimant not interested in cancellation of P.T.D. issued to transferee, having approached merely for cancellation of deed of association

Power to cancel deed of association, held, was vested in Settlement Authorities though same was to be exercised sparingly.

Contention having received full consideration of High Court was repelled and no case was made out to arrive at a different conclusion

Appeal being devoid of force, dismissed with costs.

Settlement authorises transferring two shops, in actual physical possession of two appellants, in favour of predecessor in-interest of respondents who held the said shops on a lease from the evacuee owner since before the Partition as recognised by Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Properties and who was the first to apply for the transfer thereof

Constitutional petitions filed by appellants contested on ground that appellants had no locus standi as they had not applied for the transfer of the said shops in time and that their admitted position till 1968 was that they were occupying the said shops as sub-tenants of predecessor-in-interest of respondents-High Court

Appellant contemporaneously with filing of her LH form submitting an application to Settlement authorities that the premises in dispute should be transferred to her as a clinic

Chief Settlement Commissioner was required under para. 20 of Settlement Scheme No, 1, in case of property converted to some other use after 14-8-1947, to determine as to what type of property it was and without such determination appellant's application for transfer was to be deemed to be still pending and the property could not be put in the earmarking list

Order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejecting application of appellant without issuing 15 days'notice as required under para. 10 of Settlement Scheme No. I was void and a nullity having caused prejudice to appellant and being in violation of mandatory provision of law

Appellant having approached Chief Settlement Commis

Transfer could not be cancelled nor transferred house could be put to auction without service of notice to transferee-Transferee, in circumstance, had vested right in property and subsequent auction and issuance of P.T.D. in favour of auction purchaser, held, was of no consequence.

Period of limitation for filing civil suit against order of Settlement Authorities having been prescribed one year under Art. 14 of Limitation Act, 1908, suit filed against such order after expiry of more than six years held, was barred by time even if suit was a declaratory one.

Agreement of association executed between transferee of evacuee property and bona fide purchaser thereof was duly approved by Settlement Authorities

Order of cancellation of such agreement procured by respondent from Settlement Authorities through fraud and misrepresentation by producing false person, held, would be nullity in eye of law and could not affect rights of bona fide purchaser from transferee.

P.T.D. issued by Settlement Department without proper exercise of its authority, held, would be subject to judicial scrutiny of High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction and transferee would not acquire valid title in respect of property transferred on basis of that P.T.D.

Transfer of property-Petitioner was held to be entitled to transfer of tenement in question by Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who further ordered that Appendix X to be prepared and issued

Deputy Settlement Commissioner did not issue any notice to petitioner requiring him to comply with directions contained in notice within a period of fifteen days and later on without complying with provisions of para.29 of Settlement Scheme No.I, transferred said property to respondent

Order of transfer of property passed in favour of respondent, held, was illegal and void and P. T. D. issued in his favour had no sanctity law

Order set aside and case remanded to Notified Officer to go into question of transfer afresh after hearing parties and after looking into various aspects of the case and the law.

Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2 (1) (2)-Issuance of notice for holding of inquiry regarding validity of allotment by Settlement Authority whether valid

After repeal of Evacuee Laws by Act XIV of 1975, Deputy Settlement Commissioner being not competent to entertain any matter and hold any inquiry in respect of property permanently transferred in favour of petitioner, issuance of notice by him to petitioner, held, was without .jurisdiction.

Properties of Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd. enemy property, vesting in Custodian of Enemy Property under S.182 (1)(b), Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965

Mode of disposal of such properties

Allotments issued under Rehabilitation Laws, held, would not fall within purview of Policy letter

Respondent allottee allowed by High Court to retain land in excess of their entitlement while petitioners seeking allotment of same against their pending claim

Petitioners contending that S.12, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 inhibited authority of Chief Settlement Commissioner inasmuch as his power to transfer or dispose of was subject to provisions of Act and Rules and that para. 4 of Settlement Scheme No. I placed a liability on allottee to surrender whatever they had obtained in excess of their entitlement for settling pending claims-.-Questions raised by petitioners requiring examination-Leave to appeal granted.