Settlement Scheme No. V

Order for deletion of the house from the list having been passed by competent Authority, its disposal by drawing of lots was unlawful

Only those houses had to be disposed of through earmarking which could not be transferred to occupants thereof, under paras.l, 2 & 3 of the Sched. of Settlement Scheme No.V.

Notified Officer's finding that transfer of property in question, by draw of lots was void ab initio, as the house was not available for disposal under Settlement Scheme No.V

Such order being fairly just and equitable and having rendered substantial justice by maintaining old allotments, was maintained in circumstances.

Controversy arising because of difference in number of property given in Municipal Assessment record and earmarking list and other documents subsequently prepared-Held: As disposal of property under Settlement law had taken place neither on basis of possession nor on basis of any claim attaching to property, but by drawing of lots, such controversy could not be carried beyond earmarking list published under authority of Settlement Department, application form and transfer documents prepared thereafter It is clear that property described in earmarking list published under authority of law was complete and sufficient to identify property

It may not be same as in municipal assessment register

Where person seeking allotment of property submitted L.H. form but thereafter did not pursue matter, such person, held, would be deemed to have withdrawn such form and could not obtain any right there under.

Ss. 10 & 11 read with Settlement Scheme No. V-Transfer of property-Finding of Settlement Commissioner duly supported by evidence available on record that `E' Form was filed by prodecessor-in-interest of petitioner after filing C. H. Form-Petitioner, held, lost his rights to transfer of disputed house on basis of C. H. Form as filing of 'E' Form amounted to withdrawal of C.H. form previously filed.

S. 10 and Settlement Scheme No. V-Petitioners predecessor-in. interest-A claimant displaced person-List of available properties published and given due publicity-No objection made to inclusion of property in dispute earmarking pool for 12 years-Transfer of property in favour of predecessor-in-interest of respondent becoming final

Inordinate delay of 12 years, held, amounts to waiver or acquiescence and order of transfer validly passed.-[Delay]

Art. 199 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) and Settlement Scheme No.. V-Writ jurisdiction

Dispute over transfer of evacuee property-Court cannot in writ jurisdiction, give findings on questions of fact Questions as to whether petitioner had filed C.H. Form or not and whether house in dispute was an evacuee property or an evacuee trust property-Held, cannot be re-opened.-[Question of fact].

S. 13 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, r. 13 Ex parte order, setting aside of-Contention that tenants at all stages alleged service having been fraudulently effected, and fraud vitiating all proceedings, tenants-appellants entitled to challenge ex parte order of eviction at any stage

Held, even on assumption of order being obtained fraudulently, order had to be challenged in manner prescribed by law - Rent Controller in dismissing application for setting aside ex parte decree observing that despite pleading fraud appellant appearing as witness before him did not say a word about fraud-Evidence neither misread by Rent Controller nor such finding being one of fact liable to be reopened in Supreme Court, contention not tenable.

Filing of form E for participation in car-marking Scheme-Renders person filing form E ineligible to compete for transfer of house under Scheme No. I.

Filing of application in Form "E" to join earmarking Sch: me introduced under Settlement Scheme No. V-Amounts to withdrawal of "CH" form already filed by applicant-Once Form "E" accepted by Settlement Department

Presumption that same had been accepted after proper scrutiny.

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXV111 of 1958), S. 10 d! Sch., para. 4 read with Settlement Scheme No. V and Central Government Press Notes dated 7-4-60 and 28-7-60-Analysis of para. 4of Schedule along with supporting Settlement Scheme No. . -Section 10 provides two methods for transfer of property out of compensation pool as laid down in clauses (a) and (b) of that section-Mode of transfer laid down in Central Government Notification dated 7-4-60 a self-contained independent Scheme relatable to S. 10(b) exclusively and not falling within scope of para. 4 of Schedule to the Act-Claimant participating in Settlement Scheme No. V and successful in drawing of lots but house drawn in his favour not transferred to him-Such- person entitled to take advantage of procedure laid dawn in Press Notes dated 7-4-60 and 28-7-60 but subject to the condition under first Press Note that value of his verified claim should be equal to value of house and under the second Press Note that value of property

Sch., para. 4 read with Settlement Scheme No. V. para. 6(2)-Earmarking Scheme-Claimant holding verified claim of less than 50% of value of house-Not entitled to apply for transfer of such house in earmarking scheme-Settlement Authorities not empowered to deviate from express provision of law.

Sch., pare. 4 read with Settlement Scheme No. V-Transfer of houses under para. 4 of Schedule to Act can only be made under Settlement Scheme No. V and in pursuance of applications invited by Chief Settlement Commissioner by Notification-Application at random by individual claimant as and when he chooses not entertainable-Word "transfer" for purposes of para. 4 of Schedule to Act-Means simply transfer of property to claimant subject to several provisions of Act and cannot be interpreted to mean final and completed alienation of property

Person to whom house has been transferred but no P. T. O. has been issued-Cannot claim another house by contending that first transfer has not been completed.