Settlement Scheme No. IV

Temporary allotment in the name of respondent, however, remained intact of which he was in exclusive possession while temporary allotment of petitioner (relating to Guzara allowance) was also included in the joint allotment

In post consolidation proceedings, however, land in question, which had been allotted jointly in favour of petitioner and respondent, was on modification of consolidation scheme allotted only in the name of petitioner while respondent's name was omitted

Respondent got such mistake rectified and his name was included as allottee in post consolidation scheme

Petitioner's Constitutional petition against inclusion of name of respondent relating to allotment of land in question was dismissed as incompetent

Validity

Claim of petitioner and respondent being joint, allotment in lieu thereof, could only be made to both of them, and omission of respondent's name being a clerical mistake, authority was within its right to make the amendment

Settlement Authority and the High Court rightly came to conclusion that order of Authority was strictly according to law, for claim was joint in the name of petitioner and respondent and allotment in lieu thereof, could not legally be made in the name of petitioner alone

Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.

Appellant's appeal against allotment in favour of previous allottees had been dismissed and they kept quiet for as long as seventeen years

Plea of appellants, that all the proceedings which had taken place in respect of land in question, were not binding on them, had no force for there was no valid allotment of land in question, in the name of appellants and their silence for such a long time had legally estopped them to question the subsequent allotment in favour of subsequent allottees.

Constitutional petition filed against cancellation of P.T.D., was dismissed for a number of objections including delay and laches

Leave to appeal

Petitioners could not satisfactorily explain delay in filing Constitutional petition which was filed about nine years after cancellation of P.T.D.

Petitioners also suppressed material facts in Constitutional petition which they were duty bound to explain

Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.

Houses in occupation of displaced persons from Occupied Jammu and Kashmir could not be given to any other person.

On Allottee's death, his rights in temporary allotment were transferred to his survivor associate members of family who were subsequently granted proprietary rights of land in question

Land so acquired was sold to a bona ride purchaser for consideration

Allottee's married daughter who was not associated with him as family member claimed her share in land by institution of suit which was dismissed as also her appeal

Allottee's daughter whether entitled to claim share in land in question

Rights in temporary allotment held by deceased allottee were for purposes of maintenance in regard to himself, his wife and son who associated with him in the family unit constituted for the purposes of receiving "guzara"

Upon death of allottee, his rights in the temporary allotment were transferred to survivor associate members of family only and thus rights held by deceased allottee did not remain in viciousness

Married daughter was never treated as member of the family

Agricultural land temporary allotted for purposes of maintenance was not heritable as /the right to receive maintenance came to an end with the death of recipient of maintenance and temporary allotted land thenceforth enured only for the benefit of survivor members who after acquisition of proprietary rights validly sold the land to vendee for consideration who was protected under law being bona fide purchaser for consideration

Delayed commencement of action by daughter would give rise to equity in favour of vendee, with whose act of purchasing land, no fault could be found

Revision against concurrent findings of Courts below was dismissed in circumstances.

Without disposal of respondent's Form, property in his possession was transferred to predecessor-in-interest of appellant whereupon respondent agitated against failure to dispose of his pending Form

Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed the order that property having been disposed of same was not available for transfer

Said order, was affirmed in the Settlement hierarchy

Contesting respondent invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, which declared the transfer of the portion occupied by him to the predecessor of appellant as without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Leave to appeal

Appellant's contention against contesting respondent rested mainly in not pursuing his Form and remaining in active for about fourteen years after filing of the Form

Held: transfer in favour of predecessor of appellant being manifestly against the law, could not at any stage be protected unless contesting respondent had contributed by positive act of submitting to it

Record showed that when respondent's entitlement was determined, he was not heard, direction was given by the Settlement functionary that he be informed but he was never informed

Question of laches or inactivity on the part of contesting respondent thus did not arise in such background.

Order passed in constitutional jurisdiction before repeal of S. 30(5) of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 having not been challenged by either party, held, had attained finality and, therefore, was, valid under S. 16-B of sad Act and under para. 19, Settlement Scheme No. IV framed thereunder.

Deputy Settlement Commissioner may transfer to occupant, area not exceeding thrice the area comprised in permanent construction under para. 3(d) proviso, Settlement Scheme No. IV

Order passed without considering such provisions of law, set aside, being illegal

Deputy Settlement Commissioner directed to allot remaining plot to petitioner, if still available.

1. 16-B and Settlement Scheme No. IV - Property in dispute in possession of Jammu &. Kashmir refugee, held, cannot be transferred to any body else except to such refugee-Order of rejection of petitioner's Form set aside and case remanded for disposal of petitioner's Form in accordance with law.

S. 30(5) read with Displaced Persons Laws Amendment Ordinance (XIII of 1969), S. 2 & Sched. and Settlement Scheme No. IV pare. 19-Contention that sub-S. (5) of S. 3U prohibiting transfer of evacuee property in occupation of displaced persons from Jammu & Kashmir save in favour of displaced persons from such area having been omitted and respondent not having applied for transfer of position of house in his possession portion of house in petitioner's possession stood transferred to petitioner and was "not available" for transfer to respondent-Scheme No. IV under para. 19 having placed ban similar to one under S. 30(5), contention held, not correct.

S. 13 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30 & Settlement Scheme No. IV, paras, 19 & 21-Settlement Authorities, in exercise of their exclusive jurisdiction transferring disputed house in respondent's favour, respondent paying of price, and P. T. O. issued

Petitioner-tenant failing to pay rent to respondent, ordered to be ejected by Rent Controller-Contention that house being in possession of petitioner, a refugee from Jammu & Kashmir State, transfer to respondent was void and petitioner not liable to ejectment-Petitioner having failed to file any appeal or revision against transfer of house in favour of respondent, held, cannot agitate against transfer before Rent Controller, a tribunal of limited jurisdiction.

S. 30(5) [as amended by Displaced Persons Laws Amendment Ordinance (XIII of 1964), Sched., para. 13] read with S. 16-B and Settlement Scheme No. 1V-Deletion of subsection (5) of S. 30 -Not intended to remove bar against transfer of houses and shops in possession of Jammu & Kashmir refugees and to make them available for transfer to displaced persons from other parts of India-Nor did it affect provisions of S. 16-B directing Chief Settlement Commissioner to prepare scheme for temporary rehabilitation of Jammu & Kashmir refugees-Houses and shops in possession of refugees from Jammu & Kashmir-Excluded from compensation pool maintained for settlement of refugees from other parts of India and reserved for transfer to their occupants temporarily till their repatriation.

S. 30-Houses and shops in possession of displaced persons from occupied territories of Jammu & Kashmir-Not available for transfer to any person not belonging to occupied territories-Ban imposed and protection afforded by para. 19 of Settlement Scheme No. IV-Still operative and not affected by deletion of subsection (5) from S. 30 of Act XXVIII of 1958 by amending Ordinance XIII of 1964.

, Ss. 16-B & 30 and Settlement Scheme No. IV;, paras. 19 & 21 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Act (XIII of 1964)-Operation of para. 19, Settlement Scheme No. IV effective, notwithstanding omission of S. 30(5) by amending Act XIII of 1964-Protection to Jammu and Kashmir refugees and properties occupied by them, substantively incorporated in Settlement Scheme No. IV, still available to them, Even though subsection (5) of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, has been omitted by the amending Ordinance XIII of 1964, the operation of paragraph 19 of Settlement Scheme No. IV prepared under section 16-B of the Act has been left intact, and it is difficult to see how this paragraph has become inoperative or ineffective by the omission of subsection (5) mentioned above.

Sch., Parts I & V and Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art 98-Evacuee property declared "big mansion Occupants of portions of such property cease to be entitled to its transfer on basis of their possession and .such declaration affects their locus stands to maintain a writ petition

Big mansion transferred by private negotiation for a sum of Rs. 6,60,000Displaced person having a claim of Rs. 3,000 only, asserting personal right to have such property transferred to him could in circumstances 1. ,! presumed to be acting benamidar for third party and, therefore, has no locus standi to maintain a writ petition.

Ss. 16(b) do 30(5) [as amended by Displaced Person Laws Amendment Ordinance (X111 of 1964), S. 2 read with para. 19, Settlement Scheme No. IV-Restriction imposed by para. 19, Settlement Scheme No. IV, on transfer of property in possession of displaced persons from occupied territory of Jammu and Kashmir-Remains unaltered by virtue of S. 16(b) notwithstanding deletion of S. 30(5) by S. 2, Displaced Persons Laws Amendment Ordinance, 1964-House in possession of claimant from occupied territory of Jammu and Kashmir, held, could not be transferred to other claimant holding him prior allottee and in possession of major portion of house.

S, 16-B and Settlement Scheme No. IV, para. 19-Transfer of houses and shops in possession oh displaced persons from occupied territory of Jammu and Kashmir-Settlement Authorities not competent to transfer such houses and shops to persons other than displaced persons from occupied territory n f Jammu and Kashmir.