West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme 1956

Mutation of inheritance having been attested patently against Muslim Personal Law affecting the rights of inheritance of the parties, civil Court had the jurisdiction to interfere.

Special Jamabandi prepared for the purpose is relevant to determine the character of the land and subsequent entries in the Revenue Record neither help in this regard nor affect the Jurisdiction of Settlement Authorities to deal with the land under Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958.

Contention of allotment of the suit land was to be made in accordance with Rehabilitation Commissioner, which direction had been upheld by Court in Constitutional jurisdiction

Order of the High Court was mind by the Rehabilitation Commissioner while direction, thus the order was not sustainable

Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contention raised by the petitioners.

Respondents through declaratory suit challenged transfer of suit land in favour of petitioners by Settlement Authorities, wherein respondents were already holding occupancy rights as "Taraddadkar"

Trial Court decreed the suit, against which petitioners'appeal was dismissed by Appellate Court

Contention was that Civil Court had no jurisdiction as matter in question fell within ambit of Authorities appointed under Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 and Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958

Validity

Only Civil Court could determine the question, whether or not Settlement Authorities were possessed of jurisdiction to transfer suit land in favour of petitioners

Para. 31 of West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, 1956, had placed complete bar on transfer of land held by Muslim occupancy tenant by Settlement Authorities

Courts below on the basis of evidence on record had found that respondents were "Taraddadkar" and were holding occupancy rights in suit land

Transfer of suit land by Settlement Authorities in favour of petitioners was void, which had been rightly held so by both the Courts below

High Court dismissed the petition.

Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider whether the persons claiming inheritance of deceased disputed person in view of the pedigree-table were proved to be collaterals.

Head of family in whose name allotment of land was temporarily made, paid all the dues and got proprietary rights/permanent transfer of land in his name alone

One of the daughters of head of family challenged permanent transfer of land in dispute in name of head of family alone contending that since initial temporary allotment of land in dispute was for three persons of family, permanent allotment was also required to be made in names of all three members of family and not only in name of head of family

Paragraph 44-A of West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, 1956 envisaged allotment to Jammu and Kashmir refugees who could cultivate land themselves

Only need of family in whose name temporary allotment of land in dispute was made, could cultivate land and his two dependent daughters could not cultivate

Basic document of temporary allotment had clearly shown that allotment of land in dispute was in name of head of family and number of family members mentioned as three was for the reason to determine the extent of land required for maintenance of the family

Head of family only being entitled to permanent allotment/settlement, conferment of proprietary rights in respect of land in his name alone, was perfectly valid, especially when all dues had been paid by him and two daughters who were successors-in-interest of head of family, were not entitled to have individual and separate right of allotment of such land.

Proposal of evacuee agricultural land in favour of the claimants (respondents) was yet to be confirmed when Settlement Authority through notification treated such unconfirmed proposal as .cancelled

Land in question was auctioned in favour of petitioner but same was set aside by High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction on the behest of respondents (claimants)

Validity

Only circumstance going against respondents was office memorandum of specified date which was declared by the High Court to be without lawful authority

No impediment, thus, existed in the way of Settlement Authorities in confirming proposal in the name of respondents

High Court had rightly found that it was statutory duty of Settlement Authorities to pass formal order to hand over possession of land which had been in favour of claimants (respondents), after expiry of 15 days period as per para.68, West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme

High Court having taken correct view, no case was made out for grant of leave to appeal

Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.

Question as to whether land was agricultural or building site, the important thing to be seen is its actual use to which it was put at the time of partition and how same was recorded in the Special Jamabandis of that period

Existence of quarters/out houses in land which was transferred to claimant as agricultural land and was shown as such in the Jamabandis at the relevant time, cannot change the nature of land and said land will remain as "agricultural land" for the purpose of transfer to the claimant.

Jurisdiction either to allot agricultural land within Municipal limits though falling within Border belt or to cancel allotment made by Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities

Border Area Committee had jurisdiction to scrutinise all evacuee property within any Border Area and urban agricultural land was not excluded from its purview

Jurisdiction of Border Area Committee extended to all evacuee property within any Border Area

Provisions of West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, 1956 were to be applied for purpose of such scrutiny to all evacuee property within the border belt

By such incorporation of Border Area Scheme provisions of West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, 1956 notwithstanding para. 4-A therefore, stood incorporated on the strength of West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959 conferring jurisdiction and also a test for all allotments made

Limitations and inhibitions contained in West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, 1956 itself could not control provisions of Regulation

Provisions of Regln. 9, on the contrary, subordinated provisions of West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, 1956 by its incorporation in the Regulation

Border Area Committee, thus, had jurisdiction to cancel even allotments of evacuee property in Border Area Belt.

Civil suit to challenge mutations attested by Rehabilitation Authorities in matters of inheritance of persons who had died in India was not competent

After demise of confirmed allottees in Pakistan, however, any person claiming to be heir could agitate the matter before Civil Court to establish his title in that property.

Such land being within territorial limits of Thal Development Authority, order of allotment could not be implemented on account of ban imposed by Board of Revenue vide its notification dated 9-1-1990

Validity

Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was primarily made to settle displaced persons on land and other provisions appearing therein were intended to give effect to such object

Authorities had not claimed that there was no land available for adjustment against verified claim of petitioners

No justification/reason was pointed out as to how Board of Revenue by executive order could prevent his subordinates from performing or absolving them of statutory duty cast upon them by S. 15(1), Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958

Board of Revenue being creation of statute could not act in such manner which would be in violation of its obligations under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958

Notification of Board of Revenue dated 9-1-1990 imposing ban on allotment of specified land was declared to be ultra vires of its powers

Authority was directed to adjust claim of petitioners in accordance with law and rules on the subject.

Where right had vested in petitioner under Settlement Scheme duly issued by Government and Rehabilitation Commissioner had competently confirmed land in petitioner's name on register maintained for such purpose, such allotment had created right, unimpeachable except under law

No right could be taken away from a citizen except in accordance with law

Where petitioner was not a party to alleged exchange transaction and was never heard nor was even issued notice for cancellation of land so allotted to him under verified claim, any action purported to have been taken on assumption that petitioner's allotment stood cancelled on issuance of notification of alleged exchange, same was repugnant to principles of natural justice and thus, illegal and ineffective against rights of petitioner.

[Natural justice, principles of].

Muafi lands are those which were attached to a charitable religious or educational trusts and it was in respect of such lands that the limit of 500 P.I. Units was fixed under para. 57 of the Scheme

Endorsement in remarks of Jamabandi showing that the land revenues in respect of the land held by claimants in India was remitted by the Authorities would not have the effect of making these lands as "Muafi lands".

Petitioners claimed that their predecessor being refugee from Jammu and Kashmir agricultural land allotted to him could not be allotted to respondents for the same stood excluded from the pool for allotment to other displaced persons

Nor finding appeared to have been recorded that at the time of allotment, disputed land was deemed to be urban agricultural land as claimed by respondents

Leave to appeal was granted to consider the respective contentions raised by the parties.

Occupancy tenant carries same meaning which have been assigned to it in the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 rather the Scheme has extended the definition of "occupancy tenant".

[Words and phrases]..

Para. 31, Cls. (ix) & (iv)

Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), Ss. 5, 6 & 7

Douie's Settlement Manual, Para. 211(2)

Occupancy tenant

Order of allotment of such land being void and without jurisdiction was liable to be corrected by Civil Courts which are Courts of unlimited powers vested with general jurisdiction.

Such land was not a part of compensation pool and would be. deemed to have been sold to Ministry of Kashmir Affairs, therefore, it could not be allotted to others

Land in question, being not available for allotment its allotment in favour of predecessors-in-interest of petitioners was void ab initio and did not confer any rights either upon allottees or petitioners who claimed through them

Respondent (Jammu and Kashmir refugee) was thus, not required to have challenged subsequent allotment in favour of predecessor of petitioners before the hierarchy provided under Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and such allotment could just be ignored

Plaintiff in his plaint claimed that land in question, had been allotted to him on 21-2-1964 and had produced documents in support of such assertion

Defendants claimed that land in question, had been lawfully allotted and confirmed in the name of their predecessors on 5-3-1963 i.e. before its alleged allotment in favour of plaintiff

Plaintiff's subsequent deviation from his pleadings and evidence before Appellate Court that he had been allotted land earlier than that of defendant would be of no avail to him, for he could not be allowed to deviate from his pleadings and definite stance taken by him before Courts below regarding date and year of allotment of la4_ in his favour

Plaintiff never made any move even uptil then to seek amendment of plaint so as to correct date , of his allotement

Plaintiff in such background could not take advantage of legal principle that admission contrary to record was not binding on a party

Plaintiff, thus, failed to prove his entitlement to land in question.

Land allotted on temporary basis to Jammu and Kashmir Refugees for maintenance would stand excluded from the Scheme and could not be allotted- thereunder

Land in question being covered by para. 4-A(ix) (Part 1), Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, 1956, allotment of such land in favour of respondent was illegal.

For purposes of allotment in terms of par a. 29, Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, 1956, only that classification of land as entered in Special Jamaband, had to be taken into consideration

Site in question, was recorded in special Jamabandi as Ghair Mumkin Abadi; therefore, it could not have been dealt with under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and allotted as agricultural land

Allotment of such site as an agricultural land in favour of appellants was thus void ab initio.

Enforcement/implementation of orders of Rehabilitation Authorities could only be corrected finally by hierarchy of Authorities under Rehabilitation laws

Jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred in such matter.

Petitioner, however, got specific mutation sanctioned in his favour for confirmaion/transfer of proprietary rights in entire land in his own name exclusively in absence of his brother (respondent)

Respondent on knowledge of such mutation moved Authorities for review of mutation in question, but his application was rejected by Authorities

Such order was passed by Authorities without consulting record

Subsequently, Authorities realizing mistake on the face of the record found that respondent being co-sharer in the original allotment was entitled to conferment of the proprietary rights and passed order for review of mutation and sanction for fresh mutation in favour of both brothers (petitioner and respondent)

Petitioner's suit for declaration that he was absolute and exclusive owner of land in question, was dismissed by both Courts below

Validity

Order of review of mutation passed by Authorities on basis of original allotment for conferment of proprietary rights to both parties in equal shares, was perfectly in accordance with law and rights of parties flowing from original allotment

Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme being Jauridar Scheme, land could not be allotted to one person and no allotment of land could be made in favour of less than two persons

Findings of two Courts below being concurrent and based on material on record were not open to interference in revisional jurisdiction especially in absence of misreading, misconstruction or non-reading of evidence.

Border Area Committee taking plea that allotment on basis of which right in land in question was claimed had been shown to be bogus as also illegal and that petitioners had no locus standi to maintain Constitutional petition

Such plea was correct for allotment allegedly obtained by allottee on the face of it was nullity in law as even a claimant under para. 55-A, West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme or under West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959, was not entitled to receive allotment of land which was not in his possession sine before the prescribed date

Allotment even if made was inconsequential and nullity in law

No right in such land could thus, be claimed by petitioners on account of sale-deed (by alleged allottee) and sale mutation

Allotment order even if passed could not be sustained in law

Petitioners who claimed to be purchasers from said allottee could not maintain Constitutional petition

Border Area Committee's plea that Settlement Commissioner was not competent to allow transfer of property in question which was situated within Border belt could not be entertained in Constitutional petition which had not been filed by the Committee

Border Area Committee would, however, be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law or institute proper proceedings in that behalf in case it was of the view that allotment obtained by some of the respondents was illegal and without jurisdiction.

Property in question was transferred to the management of school for purpose of running the school and not to any person or persons individually or collectively for their own use and benefit

Partnership of persons running the school, thus, could not claim ownership of property in question

Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners was allowed to run the school in premises in question; who was neither claimant nor was in occupation of premises in question and was allowed to use property for running the school in order to advance the cause of education viz. public interest

Name of the transferee as also the purpose for which transfer was made were completely particularized so as to remove any ambiguity

Petitioners claim that such property was not allotted to school but to their partnership (which was formed after the death of the original transferee and which was running the school) was, thus, negated in circumstances.

Holders of mortgage units in terms of para. 7-A, West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, 1956, were entitled to receive mortgage money by way of compensation only.

Para 52 of the Scheme being an executive instruction regarding settlement of refugees and their entitlements which basically was and has now been recognized as in lieu of the property rights abandoned by them in India, it had to be given a liberal and purposive construction

Executive instructions comprised in para 52, Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme being a remedial measure, numerous types of decrees and claims, authentic in nature, requiring enforcement could be included therein; and a designated authority was prescribed under such instructions for dealing with the claims.

Only rural evacuee agricultural land in six border districts could be reserved and utilized for temporary allotment to Jammu and Kashmir Refugees and such land stood excluded from settlement

Urban agricultural land thus, could not be allotted by way of maintenance to Jammu and Kashmir Refugees and if so allotted, same could not remain protected or excluded from Settlement Scheme No.II.

Such remedy, however, could not be availed of in respect of disputes relating to inheritance of property of allottee whose allotment was only temporary under Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme and it was yet to be confirmed

Paras. 46 & 46-A, Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme contained elaborate procedure to deal with such disputes.

Shariah was made applicable by deeming clause at the time of death of a, limited owner who was holding the same before partition, by para. 46, West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme

Inheritance of a displaced person was thus, to be governed by paras. 46 & 46-A, West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, whereunder sons and daughters of pre-deceased were entitled to inherit at the time when inheritance opened

Heirs of pre-deceased daughters were, thus, entitled to inherit in accordance with Shariah, and sanction of mutation in their favour could not be objected to as having been passed without lawful authority and jurisdiction.

Mere length of occupancy per se could not confer status of hereditary cultivation on a party regarded at settlement as a tenant at will

Loss of right of occupancy tenants because of abandonment of tenancy was recognised

Where occupancy right of any evacuee in any land had vested in the Custodian or where Custodian had taken possession of such land, nothing in any other law for the time being in force would operate to extinguish such right in the evacuee

Neither evacuee nor Custodian would be liable to be ejected from such land by reasons of any default of the Custodian.

Para No.7, West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, 1956, prescribed that in congested districts, land was to be given to allottees only

Sitting allottee was entitled to allotment under para 7 of the Scheme

Where cancellation of allotment was made without notice to such allottee, order of cancellation would be coram non judice, void ab initio and nullity in law

Such order could not be sustained

Order of subsequent allotment in favour of respondents being superstructure on void orders could not stand

Order of cancellation passed by Settlement Authority, being without jurisdiction was without any lawful authority and thus, not sustainable

Allotment in favour of petitioners was restored in circumstances.

Where allotment was found to be in excess due to miscalculation of Produce Index Units, allottee would be entitled to ten per cent excess on his settlement.

Land reserved for expansion of village Abadis and other public purposes, was excluded from the operation of West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, 1956.

Government subsequently while deciding to give proprietary rights to Jammu and Kashmir refugees directed that proprietary rights of temporarily alloited land be granted in the names of all members of family indicated in the allotment chit

Petitioner being allottee and member of the family was thus entitled to get one-half of the landed property

Out of remaining half of her husband who had died petitioner as widow of deceased was entitled to 1/8th share thus bringing her share to 9/16th of the property

­Deceased's daughter was entitled to 4/16th share of the whole property while his Collaterals were entitled to 3/16th of the property

Order of Assistant Collector specifying such shares was in accordance with law

Decisions of Collector and Additional Commissioner were set aside and that of Assistant Collector was restored.

Petitioners, neither were issued any notice nor were afforded any opportunity of being heard before passing ex parte order against them in remand proceedings

Petitioners, who were party to proceedings, their right in allotment of land in dispute, whether such allotment was validly made or otherwise, had been adversely affected in their absence

­Petitioners having been condemned unheard, which was against law and justice, ex parte order passed against petitioners was declared illegal by High Court and after setting aside same case was remanded to be decided afresh in accordance with law after hearing parties.

Suit land allotted to respondent in lieu of mortgagee and mortgagor's rights held in land left by him in India mortgaged by him with possession vide mortgage deed, dated 12-9-1961 and additional charge created on the land in favour of mortgagee vide registered deed, dated 25-9-1961

Both mortgages given effect to in Revenue record vide mutations, dated 20-7-1962

Appellants-plaintiffs obtaining said land through sale-deed, dated 1-11-1962, mutation respecting which was entered but later cancelled on 3-3-196& on ground that charges payable in respect thereof were not paid to Government

Mortgages in favour of mortgagee extinguished vide order of Collector, dated 3-1-1967 and consequently mutations of redemption sanctioned in Revenue record on 31-8-1967

Government charges having been paid by allottee-respondent on various dates from 4-7-1966 to 24-6-1967, proprietary rights on account of payment of charges and redemption of land granted on 12-9-1967

Mutations respecting oral sale made by allottee-respondent in favour of vendee-respondents sanctioned on 14-9-1967

Appellants-plaintiffs allegedly paying mortgage money to mortgagee'on 5-4-1968 and thereafter filing suit for declaration of title with consequential relief on 26-4-1968

Clause 7 of Chief Settlement Commissioner's Memo. dated 18-5-1962 read with paras. 7 & 14, Chap. II, Part I of Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, 1956 showing that mortgagees obtaining allotment thereunder held at best the status of an intending purchaser, they could not claim the status of even a confirmed allottee as their position was that of tenant paying land revenue, ceases and other public dues but were entitled to exercise option to purchase the land

Position of such allottees being different from a confirmed allottee, they were prohibited to alienate such land in any manner except after paying charges and after obtaining permission from the concerned officer

Prohibition thus placed was with a view to safeguard the public interest and no equity arose out of transaction prohibited by law on account of public policy

Alienation made by respondent-allottee on 1-11-1962 was thus hit by the prohibition and as such was void as neither the charges payable to Government had been paid nor mutation conferring proprietary rights had been sanctioned nor the sanction in writing of Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) to alienate the land in dispute was obtained-Transaction being void, equitable principles contained in Ss.43 & 55, Transfer of Property Act did not apply

First Appellate Court finding that substantial part of purchase price did not pass hands-Appellants-plaintiffs since sale on 1-11-1962 till cancellation of mutation on 3-3-1966 not discharging obligation of redeeming the mortgages-Assumed payment of mortgage amount on 5-4-1968 conferred no rights on appellants-plaintiffs as the land stood already redeemed vide order of Collector, dated 3-1-1967 which order had been given effect to by sanctioning necessary mutations on 31-8-1967

Appellants-plaintiffs not having discharged their obligation for years together, they could not now urge that they treated the transaction as subsisting or that vendees-respondents were not bona fide purchaser for value and that they had notice of sale transaction of appellants-plaintiffs

Version of appellants-plaintiffs that they were in possession of land in dispute through tenants not established

Sale in favour of vendees-respondents was validly made and they had no notice of any subsisting sale in favour- of any other party and they had to be treated in possession as the person in physical possession would be treated as tenant of true owner

Appellate Court, held, was right in holding that the transaction of sale vide registered sale-deed, dated 1-11-1962 was void and that provisions of Ss.43 & 55, Transfer of Property Act were not attracted to the instant case.

Provision of para.14 of Settlement Scheme does not prohibit transfer of mortgagee rights as such but prohibits transfer of title to land which was still not acquired by allottee inasmuch as he has not fulfilled the conditions attached to the allotment

Agreement held by respondent was not a sale of proprietary rights in land taking place in present but only a promise made to convey land subsequently on acquiring title after payment of necessary charges to the Government

Such agreement to sell in future on happening of contingency was not prohibited by the Scheme, same could be enforced subsequently when vendor acquired title

Doctrine of feeding the estoppel as provided in SA3, Transfer of Property Act would apply to case and it would not be with vendor or subsequent vendee to say that the agreement was bad in law as they could be forced to pass the property on to promisee in specific performance of agreement

Appellants had asserted that they were subsequent vendees for consideration without notice of respondent's interest in the property but Courts below concurrently held that no consideration had been paid by them

Such finding of fact could not be broached in second appeal-Evidence of vendor and appellants on point of consideration having been disbelieved for good reasons, its re-appraisal could not be made in second appeal to draw an inference that it sufficed to prove the payment

Respondent having taken objection to subsequent sale at the very first opportunity when mutation was being attested in their favour, appellants, held, could not airn benefit of S.53-A, Transfer of Property Act

Appeal found to be without any merit and dismissed.

Land of original owner taken over by his widow as limited owner, held, would devolve upon heirs of such original owner in accordance with Muslim Laws after death of widow

Where any person entitled to inherit such land died prior to death of widow, heirs of such person at time of death of widow, would inherit his share according to Muhammadan Law.-[Muhammadan Law].

Land allotted to original allottee for maintenance, would become available for transfer to any other eligible person after death of said allottee who was alone permit holder

Heir of deceased allottee, held, had no vested right to be given notice before transfer of such land to eligible person.

Land allotted to person by Authority for purposes of maintenance only, held, would revert to Authority after death of allottee and could not remain with heirs of deceased allottee.

Para. 18 added by West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959 (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance (III of 1981) and West Pakistan Rehabilitation & Settlement Scheme, 1956, paras. 22/44-A-Allotment of land cancelled by Border Area Committee not lawfully constituted-Material evidence on record not taken into consideration -impugned order of cancellation set aside and case remanded to newly constituted Committee for adjudication afresh in accordance with law.

Ss.4, 10, 11, 12 & 14 read with West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, 1957, Cis. 1 (vi), 2, 4-A (ix) & 23; Permanent Allotment (Jammu & Kashmir) refugees Scheme, 1961, cls. (3), (4), (5)-Land allotted to Jamrnu & Kashmir refugee under S. 12 of Act for purpose of maintenance-Held, vested in Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and stood excluded from compensation pool-Order of Settlement Authority cancelling allotment of such land and allotting same to persons other than Jammu & Kashmir refugee-Held, of no legal effect and passed without lawful authority.

West Pakistan Settlement Scheme, 1956 and Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 10 & II -Allotment Fresh allotment of land without cancellation of previous allotment order in respect of same land, held, patently without jurisdiction.

Khasra number containing petitioner's tube-well and houses (such being constructed by him) not yet disposed of-Petitioner's some units still pending in estate-Petitioner a confirmed allottee of same place as well-Petitioner, held, entitled to allotment of land in accordance, with provisions of 1956 Scheme.

Sched. V-Respondents temporary allottees in village and petitioner's claims reaching village by way of transfer subsequently-Respondents, held, had preferential right to claim land.

Para, 68 read with Scrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property) Regulation, 1961 (M. L. R. No. 89), para. 8-Surrender and repurchase of surrendered land-"Allotment" and not "confirmed" or "final allotment"-Only condition precedent for surrendering or repurchasing surrendered land.

Ch. I, Part II, Para. 14-Land regularly allotted, yet some land cancelled on ground of excess over entitlement-Held: Petitioner, could not recover land on merits-Settlement Authorities, however, to resume excess land in accordance with petitioner's choice.

Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11 read with West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, 1956, para. 4 (c)-Allotment, cancellation of-Act gives powers of cancellation or reduction of allotment to Chief Settlement Commissioner alone-Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, framed under Act-Cannot go against substantive provisions of Act-Order of cancellation of allotment passed by Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner, held, rightly upset by High Court.