Settlement Scheme No. VI

Order of Settlement Commissioner whereby he remanded the case was challenged by petitioner earlier in Constitutional petition which was dismissed by High Court after holding that Settlement Commissioner was justified in remanding the case on limited question of facts

Said remand order passed by Settlement Commissioner having attained finality, could not be challenged again in subsequent Constitutional petition on principle of res judicata.

Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property under S.8 of Evacuee- Trust. Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, challenged the order transferring said property

Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board despite holding the status of the property as Evacuee Trust Property, , validated P T.D. issued in favour of the transferee of property

Two private persons filed revision against order of the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board before Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs, which, was considered as suo motu revision and was accepted, holding that P.T.D. issued in 1974 after the target date which was 30-6-1968, could not be validated under S.10 of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 and order of Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board was set aside

Vendee of property in dispute which had purchased'property during pendency of revision before Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs, filed suit for declaration in which he had claimed that he was bona fide purchaser for value without notice of such - dispute respecting the property and that orders passed in revision were illegal and ineffective upon his rights

Validity

Property in dispute having been purchased by plaintiff during pendency of proceedings in revision, plaintiff on principle of lis pendens was bound by orders passed in .revision against his vendor

Plaintiff could not claim better title in property than his vendor/transferor

Revision petition was filed by two individuals before Secretary, Ministry'of Religious Affairs which would tantamount to setting in motion suo motu revisional jurisdiction of Secretary

Mere fact that revisional jurisdiction was exercised upon intimation of two individuals would not detract nature of suo motu jurisdiction of revisional Court

Both forums having not decided controversy on merits, case was remanded to Trial Court for decision on merits.

Evidence on record had proved that original allottee of plot in dispute, who was in its possession and had constructed six big rooms over it, had filed Application Form under Settlement Scheme No. VI

Allottee, after getting adjusted transfer price of plot from compensation book, purchased by him from a claimant, surrendered his entire rights in plot in dispute in favour of petitioner through agreement and petitioner, on basis of such agreement, applied for issuance of transfer order in his favour

Authority, after recording statement of allottee and petitioner and after preparation of account, issued transfer order in respect of plot in dispute in favour of petitioner

Transfer order issued in favour of petitioner was acted upon in shape of attestation of mutation which was duly implemented and incorporated in Revenue Record

Overwhelming evidence was available on record that plot in dispute which stood transferred in name of petitioner for all intents and purposes, had gone out of compensation pool and was no more available for auction under Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Residential Properties

Plot in dispute being no more available for auction, and Authority after transfer of same in favour of petitioner having become "functus officio", petitioner could not be deprived of same and plot could not be taken as available property

Order of Authority whereby plot in dispute was declared to be available for disposal under Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Residential Property, was declared to be illegal in circumstances.

Petitioner had applied for transfer of plot in question in 1960 while respondent had applied for the same many years thereafter

Petitioner had, admittedly, constructed godown thereon and had litigation with his tenant who was ejected

Respondent had applied to be made party in such litigation but his application was rejected against which he did not agitate any further

Respondent's civil suit against petitioner in respect of plot in question had also been dismissed and that order had attained finality as respondent did not agitate any further against dismissal of his suit

Petitioner's possession over plot in question having been established, Settlement Authority acted without any valid basis in recording finding to the contrary

Petitioner's possession over plot in question was admitted by Settlement Authority, therefore, he was entitled under law to the transfer thereof

Order of Settlement Authority allotting plot to respondent was set aside and Settlement Authority was ordered to issue transfer documents in favour of petitioner.

Settlement Scheme No. VI Terms and Conditions of Auction of Building Sites under Settlement Scheme No. VI, Condition No. 1

Auction of building site was to be conducted by Auction Committee in terms of Condition No. 1, Settlement Scheme No. VI

Auction conducted by Assistant. Accounts Officer of Settlement Department carried little weight

Auction-purchasers through such auction, would have no rights whatsoever in said auction

Successors-in-interest of such auction purchaser would have no locus standi to question allotment of property in question, in favour of allottees.

Evacuee building site on which a permanent building had been constructed by a claimant/non-claimant or any other person, same would be transferred to such person, on payment of prevailing market price plus fifty per cent. of such market value if the person in possession of the same was not its allottee but had come into the possession unauthorisedly

Transfer of any property under Settlement Scheme No.Vl, could be made in favour of party who had constructed permanent building on the open building site; but where construction was raised on an already constructed building, transfer of such a building was not covered by Settlement Scheme No.VI or para.13 of the Sched. to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.

High Court found that respondent had produced whatever material was available with him and as such material came from official source, it could not be rejected unless it was shown to be a forgery which of course, was not done in the case

Held, Respondent had proved the filing of the Form by production of receipt as well as the certificate from the relevant official authorities that he had filed the Form

If authorities were not able to trace the Form, it was no fault of the respondent

Documents filed in public offices have to be kept in safe custody by the authorities and for their lack of proper care citizens could not be made to suffer

An occupant having been settled, there was no justification to re-open the matter subsequently on the motion of heirs of auction-purchaser-petition for leave to appeal was dismissed being without merit.

Settlement Authorities concurrent finding was that respondent allottee was in possession of premises in question, before the target date

Respondent's name was also recorded as a voter in the voters list in the premises in question

Respondent being in unauthorized possession of vacant evacuee plot before the target date, and having raised permanent construction thereon was entitled to its transfer alongwith any small area left for a lawn or a courtyard or for a path

Petitioners had not led evidence in proof of their contention that disputed area was being used as a courtyard by them

Premises in question, was proved to be a separate and distinct plot over which petitioners had no right and were thus, not entitled to its transfer

Order of transfer in favour of petitioners, if any, was therefore, without sanction and nullity in the eye of law as against the rights of respondent allottee.

Filing of Form under Settlement Scheme No.VI, was meant to facilitate the determination of right of unauthorised occupation within a time prescribed by Chief Settlement Commissioner

Settlement Scheme No.VI being facilitative in nature did not extinguish the right of unauthorised occupation

Person who had been in occupation of property in question since 1947; had raised permanent construction over the plot after getting sanction from Municipal Committee; to such a vigilant person lapse of non-filing of Form for allotment of same could not be attributed

Petitioners being in unauthorised possession of property in question were entitled to transfer under Para 13 of Settlement Scheme No.VI.

Transfer of. plot in dispute in favour of petitioners through auction was challenged by respondent on ground that plot had already been transferred to him under Settlement Scheme No. VI and he had paid entire price thereof

Controversy between parties was revolving round the question whether plot already transferred to respondent was same and had subsequently been auctioned off in favour of petitioners

Respondent produced on record documentary evidence which left no room for doubt that plot transferred to him was same which subsequently was auctioned to petitioners

Petitioners, on the other hand, having failed to place on record any document rebutting claim of respondent, case was not found fit for interference

Leave to appeal was refused.

Nature of property as to whether it was agricultural or building site, would be determined from the very use and purpose to which same was put by owner of that property at time of independence in context of special Jamabandi relating to the year 1947

Land, would not cease to be agricultural merely because before relevant time it was not bearing any crop, because agricultural lands are often allowed to remain fallow in ordinary course of agriculture

Plot of land assessed to land revenue, would not be "land" for purposes of Settlement under the Act, unless proved that it was occupied or let for agricutural purposes or for purpose subservient to agriculture

Such an exercise could be done in the context of entries made in special Jamabandi and relevant revenue papers relating to partition.

Plot alongwith other land was confirmed as an agricultural land in favour of respondent and others, but petitioner neither challenged such confirmation nor nature of property before competent authorities

Settlement Authorities on basis of revenue record treated plot as agricultural land and confirmed same as such in favour of respondent

Findings of Settlement Authorities that plot was agricultural and not urban, based on record being justified could not be interfered with.

Order passed by Authority being just, fair and in accordance with law, interference declined.

Petitioners' application for transfer of plot in dispute rejected in 1960 without hearing them and order attained finality

Order of Notified Authority in favour of petitioners, without referring to earlier proceedings, set aside by High. Court

Leave to appeal granted to examine contentions that an order which had been passed without hearing parties, without notice to them and had never been communicated to them, could not so bind petitioners as to foreclose and conclude their entitlement in the matter

Such order had not in fact the effect of rejecting claim of petitioners under Settlement Scheme No. VI, and if that order had been ignored by Notified Authority, it should have been brought to its notice and Notified Authority should have been left to adjudicate on it instead of a summary adjudication on a question of fact by High Court itself.

High Court, not in all cases, prohibited from noticing obvious and/or undeniable facts tans' could draw necessary inferences from them; particularly in Rehabilitation arid Settlement cases under laws relating displaced persons

Normal rules of treatment of case in its writ jurisdiction would not apply to consideration of a settlement case by High Court in the sat;' jurisdiction.

S. 10 & Sched., para. 16-B-Settlement Scheme No. VI-Memorandum of Chief Settlement Commissioner No. 2177-F & M-Reh./60, dated 4-5-1960, para. 7-Transfer of industrial concern-Industrial concern allotted in portions to three persons viz., M. D., a claimant displaced person, M. S. a non-claimant displaced person and F. M., a local-Chief Settlement Commissioner refusing transfer of portion to F. M. on ground that an industrial concern could not be divided, same principle, however, not adopted while settling competing claims of M. D. and M. S. and what prompted such division was not divisibility of property and possession because possession of M. D. was not honoured in division as he was ousted from property allotted to him and in his possession and installed on another portion of property in possession of F. M.-Such transfer was not based on any principle discernible from Settlement Laws-Settlement Authorities found to have considered that both M. D. as well as M. S. were entitled to transfer of said property-Or

Person in possession of a plot who had raised a Pacca construction thereon applied for its transfer under Settlement Scheme No.VI as a "building site"

Entitlement of such person to be determined in accordance with para. 13 of the Sched. to the Act without reference to the definition of "permanent building" as given in Settlement Scheme No.VI

Provisions of the Act prevail over the Settlement Scheme and no limitation, therefore, could be read into the provisions of the Act.

Intra-Court appeal-Finding of fact that the portion of disputed property claimed by petitioner was earlier transferred in favour of respondent on C.S. Form and that neither the petitioner had applied for its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VI nor could Settlement Authorities transfer same under Settlement Scheme No. VIII

Such finding of fact could not be challenged in Intra-Court Appeal and consequently the appeal of petitioner was rightly dismissed

Leave to appeal refused

Settlement Authorities on coming to finding that covered area in plots in occupation of respondents was less than 1/4th and construction was temporary, holding them ineligible for transfer and putting plots to auction which were purchased ultimately by petitioner who was also issued P. T . Ds-Chief Settlement Commissioner subsequently taking up matter suo motu, deputing Deputy Settlement Commissioner who inspected spot and came to conclusion that covered area was not less than 1/4th and that construction was Pucca and transferred plots to respondents but on appeal/ revision, Settlement Commissioner by impugned order remanded case to Deputy Settlement Commissioner for clarification of certain points and for reply to queries raised in order of remand

Position taken by petitioner, that Settlement Commissioner himself could well have decided all points in accordance with law and on basis of material existing on record, not controverted by respondents

Order of remand set aside in circumstances and revision treated to be pending before notified officer who was directed to decide same afresh in accordance with law and after hearing parties.

Petitioners on learning about it, making application to Deputy Settlement Commissioner on a plain paper for cancellation of auction of plot and offering to purchase same at prevailing market price plus fifty per cent, thereof

Additional Settlement Commissioner passing order on such application, without notice to auction-purchaser, that the plot be given to petitioners provided they paid 1/4th of auction price plus fifty per cent within seven days of order

No amount having been deposited by petitioners within the time allowed, alleged transfer in their favour cancelled by Settlement Department

Petitioner's revision petition before Settlement Commissioner and subsequent writ petition having been dismissed, matter coming in appeal before Division Bench of High Court which remanded case to Additional Settlement Commissioner for adjudication afresh-Additional Settlement Commissioner in remand proceedings rejected petitioners'claim to property in dispute by impugned order

Order of Additional Settlement Commissioner being a conditional order, fact that requisite condition had not .been fulfilled coupled with the admitted position that the petitioners had applied for cancellation of auction on date after property had been put to auction was sufficient to sustain the impugned order

Allowing petitioner's request to treat their application on plain paper as prescribed form for transfer of property, held, would amount to giving a premium on their own negligence to determent of respondent who was the successful bidder in auction and in his absence order was procured by petitioners from the Settlement Department

Validity of said order was also open to serious objection as the same had been passed in absence of respondent

Non-filing of form by petitioners was established beyond any doubt in that the petitioners had failed to produce any form or proof of same having been fixed by them

Finding of Additional Settlement Commissioner on that score apart from being a finding of fact and not open to question in constitutional jurisdiction was otherwise also not open to objection on merits of the case

Petition being without any merits dismissed.

Finding that application was within limitation being a finding of fact, could not be interfered with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction

Settlement Authorities while dismissing . revision /petitions of contesting parties directing sale of property in dispute through auction

Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners meanwhile making application for sale of disputed property and after approval of Central Government property was sold to him-Matter having come before it through writ petition, High Court remanding case to Chief Settlement Commissioner to decide inter alia whether predecessor-in-interest of respondent had applied for transfer of property in dispute under Settlement Scheme No. VI within limitation

Commissioner exercising powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner finding that though application of predecessor-in-interest of respondent was subsequent to final date specified by Government, same was entertained on basis of Supreme Court decision in P L D 1965 S C 79 and holding that since he had been pursuing his case for allotment since 1952, his application was rightly entertained and his claim to the allotment of property in dispute was justified-application of respondent's predecessor-in-interest under Settlement Scheme No.VI not being within limitation, neither any order entertaining same shown nor application for condonation of delay ever filed

Record of Settlement Department also showing that application of predecessor-in-interest of respondent under said Scheme was rejected

Such order of rejection not having been challenged, matter was concluded and transfer under Settlement Scheme No.VI could not be ordered in favour of respondent's predecessor-in-interest

Fact that it was -not pleaded that application stood rejected or that notwithstanding "record examined" by offices; passing impugned order, he had not referred to said proceedings would only show lack of diligence in examining original record with care

Deficiency or default could not lead to disappearance of a fact and would not detract from reality that the application of respondent's predecessor-in-interest stood rejected and that order never having been challenged had become final under the law

Property in dispute having been sold in favour of their predecessor-in-interest by Central Government some 25 years ago, petitioners, held, were entitled to have it in peace

Impugned order ,declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Deceased respondent admittedly filed application under Settlement Scheme No.VI for transfer of disputed property subsequent to final date specified by Government in that respect

High Court remanded case to Settlement Authority to determine whether such respondent had applied for transfer of property in dispute under said scheme within limitation and after having found that application was not within limitation Authority, held, should have decided matter accordingly instead of proceeding to observe that application was entertain able or basis of ruling of Supreme Court in P L D 1965 S C 79.

Claim of respondents' ownership by virtue of P. T . D . having been issued in their favour disputed by Evacuee Trust Board

Respondents' suits for declaration and perpetual injunction decreed and decisions upheld in revisions

Leave to appeal granted to consider contentions that (i) suits of plaintiffs were not maintainable in view of pendency of their reference application before Board for determination of nature of property; (ii) that civil Court was not competent to grant any declaration in view of provisions of Act (XIII of 1975), and S. 9, C.P.C. and (iii) that leave to appeal had already been granted for consideration of similar questions

C

Property in dispute transferred to him under Settlement Scheme No.I and Settlement Scheme No. VI on ground that he had rebuilt property and a charge had been created by him, subject to confirmation upon verification of area and nature of construction-Notice was issued to appellant but he failed to produce evidence, his 'P' Form was rejected and he was informed by a notice when property was put to unrestricted auction which was confirmed in favour of respondent

Appellant applying for charge money as well as filing appeal against auction which was ultimately accepted by Settlement Commissioner who remanded case for disposal of appeal in accordance with law after adducing evidence on question of limitation and fraud—Appellant contending non-service of said notices but failing to establish it before Settlement Authorities

Appeal filed before Additional Settlem

Orders of Settlement Authorities passed applying conscious mind to facts and circumstances of case, suffered from no jurisdictional defect and while passing such orders, Settlement Authorities had not flouted relevant provisions of law

Such orders, held, would not call for interference by High Court in constitutional jurisdiction.

Transfer of property-Property transferred under Settlement Scheme No.VI but cancelled by Deputy Settlement Commissioner after declaring transferee to be a defaulter on assumption that Demand Notice, under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, issued to him required him to pay transfer price, was ignored by him

Record showing that no Demand Notice was served and as such a mandatory provision of law violated

Order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, resuming property and its subsequent disposal by auction, held, was not sustainable

Transferee having already deposited transfer and other dues, issue of fresh notice dispensed with

Property ordered to be restored to transferee.

Notified officer for purpose of meeting requirement of permanent building showing concern to the requirement of one-fourth construction only and not on the nature of construction

Such omission, held, would be violating requirement of law

Order of Notified Officer not expressing opinion on nature of construction was declared to be without lawful authority

While remanding case High Court directed Authority to consider entitlement of respondents on the basis of nature and structure of building according to law, as contemplated by provisions of para. 3(c) of Settlement Scheme No.VI for transfer of building sites.

Conditions.

Respondent's transfer prior in time and P.T.D. validly issued in his favour by Settlement authorities immune from interference-Petitioner, after having conceded to remand order by High Court, not permitted to assail finding of Settlement Commissioner on question of fact

Leave to appeal refused.

Leave to appeal refused.

Impugned order suffered from no error of law, constitutional remedy was refused in circumstances.

Petitioner taking no action before Settlement Department to establish his right to property and his entitlement not established

Question whether property had been gifted away to petitioner a disputed question of fact which could only be determined after recording of evidence

Decision on question of fact not possible by High Court in Constitutional proceedings

Petitioner, held, could not be termed as an "aggrieved party"

Petition dismissed-Petitioner at liberty to file proper action in civil Court for declaration of his rights if so desired.

Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Art. 98 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched. and Settlement Scheme No. VI,. para. 5-Transfer of building site-Applicants not disclosing particulars of permanent construction raised by them and Deputy Settlement Commissioner also not ensuing satisfaction of jurisdictional requirement either by getting plot inspected or otherwise-Area thus transferred found to be in excess of what actually existed-Bounden duty of Settlement Commissioner to readjust such excess area and, in view of jurisdictional defect, to consider very entitlement of transferee in light of law conferring jurisdiction-Order passed by Settlement Authorities found to be eminently just and proper-Held, could not be interfered with by High Court in constitutional jurisdiction.

Para. 2-Transfer of plot-Fact of appellant having been in possession of a portion of plot in dispute and having raised permanent construction over it before target date-Not disputed-Respondents on such fact alone, held, could not be transferred at least such portion as fell in possession of appellant and over which he raised construction

After remand of case to Settlement authority by High Court, question of transfer having to be re-examined and merits of case of each party having to be reconsidered a re-examination of case on merits would have disentitled respondents to claim portion in possession of appellants, Settlement authority's order not interfering with possession of appellants, held, unexceptionable and could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction on any ground whatsoever

Parties having sought permission to compromise and readjust possession by mutual consultation to make most profitable use of land, recorded compromise filed and made rule of Court.

- Art. 185(3) read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched; para. 13 and Settlement Scheme VI-Leave to appeal-Granted to consider whether High Court erred in law in upholding auction in favour of respondents on assumption that earlier transfer of plot to another person being an illegal transfer did not confer any rights on him and could, therefore, be ignored.

Appellant not in possession of premises at relevant time as such had no right even to submit form under Scheme No. VI-Record not showing that appellant had put up any construction on plot Mera assertion by someone that appellant bad put some construction, held, cannot be relied upon-Findings of facts maintained in circumstances of case.

Chap. 31, paras. 4 & 5-Petitioner's N. C. H. Form remained undisposed of before property transferred to respondent in auction-Auction order transferring property to respondent, held, v , clearly in violation of Scheme and quashed.

Art. 199 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched. and Settlement Scheme No. VI Point whether Ihata in dispute was part of shop transferred to petitioner-Finding of Settlement Commissioner on such point of fact neither erroneous nor suffering from any omission or misreading of record-Held, could not be taken exception of by High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction-Order of High Court dismissing writ petition upheld.

Ss. 96 & 104 and Settlement Scheme No. VI-Appeal Principle that a stranger adversely affected by an order in a suit, can file an appeal, held, equally applicable to appeals filed under Evacuee laws.

[Appeal (civil)].

Additional Settlement Commissioner not giving reasons for rejecting higher offer of respondent and accepting that of appellant

Appellant, held, could not be penalised after her offer duly accepted and a bona fide purchaser should not suffer because of such omission on part of settlement authority.

Para. 6-Plot subject-matter of petition auctioned in favour of respondents and P. T. D. also issued-Petitioner not disputing auction of property in respondent's favour but alleging such auction having covered only a part of property and remaining part being open for transfer to petitioner-Point having not been taken in any of Courts below nor finding mention anywhere in writ petition Rejected-Reliance of petitioner upon some earlier form-Not possible due to finding of fact having been recorded by Department that no such form was ever filed-Form LH filed by petitioner when property already stood disposed of, writ petition, held, without merit and dismissed.

Transfer of evacuee property (open plots)-Appellants in possession of property on relevant date viz. 20th December, 1958 only as tenants of respondent-Possession in such eventuality deemed to be with respondent-Respondent having made an application for transfer of open plot on ground of having put up a construction thereon but Settlement authority without examining merits of such application issuing P. T. O. in favour of appellants-Such order of transfer having been made during pendency of respondent's application for transfer of open plot, shop, held, rightly transferred to respondent under Settlement Scheme No. VI.

Para. 6-Transfer to Jammu & Kashmir refugees in lieu of claim Transfer of property in dispute in favour of appellant's predecessor, admittedly made in satisfaction of his claim-Such transfer, held, did not affect proprietary rights of Central Government- Appellant, held can have no grievance if transfer in favour of his predecessor cancelled and property resumed by Central Government particularly when his predecessor left country and not heard of.

Para. 6(d)(iv)-Settlement Scheme though recognizes transfer of his rights in property by transferee to any person, yet it also provides such transfer not to affect proprietary rights of Central Government vested in such property.

Such site, held, could not be disposed of by public auction unless .vet form first attended to and disposed of-Auction of property, in circumstances, held, void and without effect.

Read with Settlement Schemes Nos. V1 & VIII-Dispute over transfer of shop site-Comments of Settlement Department showing that after rejection of petitioner's claim form for site in dispute was auctioned and that petitioner bad unauthorisedly occupied site and raised construction thereon-Petitioner failing to establish his entitlement to transfer of disputed site-Held, petitioner rightly non suited and site also rightly disposed of by auction.

Sched, paras. 13 & 14 read with S. 10 and Settlement Scheme No. VI para. 1, cl. 3 (c) and Notification No. 10593-PI-Reh./60, dated 24th June, 1960-Evacuee vacant building sites-Division for transfer of-Nothing in Act or Schemes forbidding division of plot in accordance with principles governing by laws of a local body Plot according to byelaws of local body divisible into two parts of 600 square yards each - Settlement authorities holding area of permanent construction of appellants being only 220 square yards and not 313 square yards as claimed, construction raised on plots by appellants consequently not covering 1/4th of full plot, division of plot into two parts, held, not merely in accordance with law but also most appropriate course in circumstances -[Mst. Mahmooda Tehsin v. S. Ijaz Hussain Shah P L D 1965 S C 618 held not applicable].

Paras. 1 (3), 2, 3 & 6 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 20 (3)-Review-Deputy Settlement Commissioner though not empowered to review his order and his order transferring property to, respondent could ,be described as irregular; yet Settlement Commissioner having gone into merits of case and then transferred property to respondent and he having ample power of revision suo motu to correct any error likely to have crept. into order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, irregularity committed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner, held, stood cared.

Art. 201 read with Settlement Rules, Settlement Scheme No. VI and Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rebabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched.-Plot in dispute disposed of by open auction after rejection of "P" form-Applicant of. "P" form not pursuing remedy but sleeping over his rights until auction proceedings confirmed and P. T. D. issued-Neither lack of jurisdiction nor exercuse of any, fraud pointed out-Permanent Transfer Deed, held, could not be cancelled after lapse of nine years in circumstances of case.

Sched, para.13 & 14 read with Settlement Scheme No. VI and Chief Settlement Commissioner Memo dated 17-11-1M (allegedly directing transfer of plots having fire-wood stall, to occupants notwithstanding nature of construction thereon)-Evacuee Sites Transfer of

Memorandum dated 17-11-1960-No way authorises Settlement authorities to ignore provisions of paras, 13 & 14-Memorandum merely lays down method of evaluating sites containing fire-wood stalls for purpose of transfer and does not authorise transfer to occupants irrespective of nature of constructions-Memorandum even if supposed to give such authority held, would be in violation of auras. 13 & 14 of Schedule to Act XXVHI of 1958 and cannot be given effect to.