Supplementary Settlement Scheme No. II
Supplementary Settlement Scheme No. II legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Central Government was possessed of the power to dispose of evacuee property under the Supplementary Settlement Scheme No.11
Chief Settlement Commissioner could dispose of such land only to a limited extent
Where the claim of a person exceeded that limit, only the Central Government was authorized to dispose of that claim
Petitioners could, however, claim benefit of adjustment of their verified claim for rural areas up to the extent of limit within the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, provided such verified claim had not been settled elsewhere and conditions of policy were satisfied.
Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities later cutting down said allotment to 8 Acres which was said to be the ceiling prescribed for place where disputed land was located
Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner subsequently, on his application, passing an order on 21-10-1970 to the effect that claimant allottee (predecessor-in-interest of petitioners) was entitled to retain 17z'Acres already allotted to him and that his unsatisfied urban and rural claims should be adjusted against the disputed land
Meanwhile, during pendency of said application, local Settlement Authorities making proposals for allotment of part of disputed land in favour of respondents
Petitioners on receiving about such proposals obtaining stay order with the result that confirmation of proposals held in abeyance
Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on receipt of order of Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated 21-10-1970 passed in favour of predecessor-in-interest of petitioners, bringing previous history of case to notice of Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner who ultimately withdrew his said order
Contention that such order of withdrawal was in substance one of review of his order, dated 2-10-1970 and that S.20 of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 having been repealed by Displaced Persons Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1964, Chief Settlement Commissioner did not possess power to review an earlier order
Chief Settlement Commissioner in circumstances also having ceased to be appellate and revisional authority after repeal of S.20 he could not make the order, dated 21-10-1970
Such order could not be passed even under S.9(3) of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 which confers only powers of general superintendence and control on Chief Settlement Commissioner or under para. 33 of Supplementary Scheme No. II as orders and instructions envisaged therein were of administrative nature
Held, authority competent to make an order has also implied power to withdraw same
Chief Settlement Commissioner, considering his position in hierarchy of offices created by Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, could not be denied the power to rescind or withdraw an earlier order made by him either during course of general superintendence and control over his subordinate officers or while ensuring proper implementation of a scheme prepared under the Act
Contention of petitioners that Chief Settlement Commissioner was not competent to withdraw his order dated 21-10-1970, could not, therefore, be accepted
Order of withdrawal could also be sustained on ground that before passing order of 21-10-1970, respondents adversely affected were not heard and thus it violated important principle of natural justice
Order of withdrawal of Chief Settlement Commissioner, therefore, could not be interfered with in circumstances of case.
To make claimant of rural agricultural land entitled for settlement on urban agricultural land, essential conditions, held, would be that such claimant must be temporary allottee of such urban land and he must be in possession thereof for five years on or before 8th December, 1960.
S. 9-Supplementary Scheme No. II, para. 33.-Displaced Persons Laws (Amendment) Act (XIII of 1964), Sehed.- Power of Chief Settlement Commissioner to withdraw his earlier order-Chief Settlement Commissioner ceasing to be revisional and appellate authority and having no power to review, held, cannot be denied power to rescind or withdraw an earlier order made by him either during course of general superintendence and control over officers subordinate to him or while ensuring proper implementation of a scheme prepared under Act.
Paras. 8 & 24-Allotment and transfer of urban and rural land Ceiling under area rationing system enforced by Chief Settlement Commissioner under para. 8-Held, covers rural allottee/claimant as well as urban allottee/claimant and that application of rationing system was valid.
Cl. 24, second proviso - Remand - Settlement Commissioner deeming fit to call upon Deputy Settlement Commissioner to examine each case individually and send his recommendation to him-Matter being related to inquiry into facts, Chief Settlement Commissioner cannot be said to have passed order of remand without lawful authority-Question whether case could have been decided by Chief Settlement Commissioner on material available or it required further inquiry from field staff-To be judged by Chief Settlement Commissioner himself-High Court while examining legality of an order or proceeding impugned before it, held, does not sit as a Court of appeal nor would substitute itself for lower tribunal notwithstanding another view of matter being possible.-[Remand of case].
Para. 24 (2), Second Proviso-Temporary allotment-Transfer of urban land to claimant of rural areas-Confirmation of disputed land in favour of urban area claimants not subsequent to date of promulgation of second proviso to para. 24 (2), such proviso, held, did not affect their case and confirmation of urban land in their favour unexceptionable.
[Interpretation of statutes].
Para. 24 read with Cirular Memo. No. 2586-63/4258-R (L), dated 26th June, 1963-Allotment-Petitioners having no entitlement for urban land in dispute and having verified claim in respect of rural land abandoned in India-Not eligible for allotment of land in dispute-Petitioners failing to establish urban area in dispute being included in their temporary allotment and having retained their possession as such for more than five years, petitioners, held, not entitled to retain land in dispute.
Cl. 24, proviso 2 read with Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 10-Cancellation of allotment Words "fraud" - "False representation" - Meanings - Department allotting land to appellant fully knowing allotment having previously stood in name of appellant's son-Such fact mentioned in proposal in R. L. 11 Register itself-Appellant's claim also not challenged as having not been verified or for being for units less than allotment-Department's allegation only being appellant having obtained allotment of land temporarily allotted to his son-Allegation, held, can by no stretch of imagination be said to be an act of 'fraud or misrepresentation and cancellation of allotment under S. 10 illegal and not maintainable.-[Words and phrases].
Supplementary Scheme No. 2, para. 24-Second proviso added on 20-2-60 and read with Central Government Memo. No. 2456-60/1926R(P) dated 19-5-60-S, entitled under second proviso to retain his temporary urban area against his rural land, making application to Central Government on 13-12-60 claiming benefit under second proviso-Application pending before Chief Settlement Commissioner for disposal alongwith other recommended cases-Meanwhile Central Government taking fresh decision whereby temporary allottees of urban land having verified rural units were completely barred from retaining temporary area in lieu of rural units-T
"Supplementary Settlement Scheme No. II", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3687
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Supplementary Settlement Scheme No. II"
1983 S C M R 333
Sheikh GHULAM QADIR-Petitioner Versus Malik ABID HUSSAIN AND OTHERS-Respondents
Court: High CourtP 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.1983 S C M R 385
HAKIM ALI AND OTHERS-Appellants Versus FAZAL DIN AND owns-Respondents
Court: High Court1979 S C M R 475
ABDUL BARI AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (WITH POWERS OF SETTLEMENT
Court: High Court1987 C L C 1026
ASHRAF HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus M. A. HAQ and others‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore1986 M L D 155
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Appellant Versus NASIR FAROOQ and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore1972 S C M R 359
PRINCE GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Appellant Versus SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER,
Court: (a) Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme read with Supple mentary Scheme No. 2 framed in 1959 with reference to provisions of Sched. IV of Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956‑Urban garden‑Whether allotment governed by provisions of Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme and instructions thereto or by provisions of Supplementary Scheme No. 2.1987 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.1992 S C M R 827
ABDUR RAHIM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan