Settlement operations and Settlement Manual
Allotment of Evacuee land. Sufficient material’ has not been brought on record to show as to how respondents’ units came to be satisfied in estate in question, therefore, plea of appellants that they were sitting allottees in Chak, cannot be adequately adjudicated upon–Held: Interest of justice would be satisfied if, instead of remanding case, land is equally distributed among parties–1/4th of land given to appellants while remaining 3/4th given to respondents’ side, 1/4th to each party. PLJ 1991 SC 489 Whether Settlement Authorities have power to examine as to whether original owner had migrated to Pakistan or not–Question of–Genuineness of claim is not disputed–Petitioner placed entire reliance on affidavit of one Ellahi Bakhsh stating that Noor Din (original owner) was in India–Held: Settlement Authorities were not competent to examine question of migration of Noor Din to Pakistan–Held further: Confirmation in favour of respondent has attained finality. PLJ 1991 Lahore 272 Custodian reviewing his ‘earliar order and confirming allotment of respondent–Challenge to–Earlier order of Custodian was obviously without jurisdiction, as such void–It was least permissible to allow such an illegality to perpetuate–As allotment of respondents was not questioned in due course of time, it attained finality–Held: Impugned order of Custodian having been passd to recall an illegal order, cannot be reversed in exercise of writ jurisdiction–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1991 AJK 38 Word “informant” has not been defined in Section 14(1-A) of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958–It has, therefore, to be interpreted according to ordinary meaning given in dictionary–A person will be treated as informant who had taken some initiatory steps in commencing proceedings in time before or after commencement of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973 under Section 10 of 1958 Act–Held: Petitioners having not laid any information before or after advent of Act, 1973, are not entitled to be treated as informants–Held further Conclusion arrived at by Notified Officer, is eminently correct and does not call for any interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. PLJ 1993 Lahore 348
Application for transfer of house–Refusal of–Challenge to–Whether rental value was less than Rs.10000/- and appellant (a local) was entitled to its transfer–Question of–Excise & Taxation Department.assessed rental value at Rs: 270/- whereas Municipal Committee assessed it at Rs: 200/- per annum–Under Para 22-A of Settlement Scheme No.1, lesser of two assessments is to be adopted for determination of amount payable by transferee–Held: On evaluating rental value assessed by Municipal Committee, it would come to Rs: 9200/- which is less than Rs: 10000/- and predecessor-in-interest of appellants was entitled to transfer of property in dispute. PLJ 1991 Lahore 311 Main bungalow transferred to petitioner and another–After repeal of Settlement Laws, out-houses transferred to respondents–Whether out-houses were available as residual property–Question of–In view of clear findings in previous writ petition, it is idle on part of respondents to contend that servant quarters were not transferred in earlier round of litigation–Respondent No.1 acted clearly in excess of anthority in transferring quarters to respondent Nos. 2 to 23–Held: It is clear that servant quarters/out-houses in possession of respondents stood transferred to petitioner and could not have been subsequently transferred to any of respondents–Petition accepted. PLJ 1991 Lahore 401
Auction of Rice Mill–Non-delivery of possession to respondent No.4–Allotment of alternate land to him–Challenge to–Admittedly respondent No.4 was neither allottee nor in possession of disputed land and same has been transferred to him on basis that he could not be delivered possession of auctioned property–Once property was auctioned in favour of respondent No.4, steps should have been taken for handing over possession or respondent No.4 could be permitted to proceed in accordance with law–Held: Action of Settlement Department in providing alternative disputed property was wholly illegal–Held further Effect of dismissal of Civil Appeal of petitioners by Supreme Court is that property remained as non jagir and therefore, petitioners could not be transferred same–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1994 Lahore 337
Cancellation of land:- Respondents No.1 to 3 who are claiming restoration of their allotment as Jammu and Kashmir refugees, were not made party in earlier writ petition–They were necessary party–Petitioner is guilty of suppressing material facts and did not disclose about filing of present Writ Petition and its pendency–Had this material fact been brought to notice of High Court, there was no legal justification to accept Writ Petition No. 217-R of 1987 on 7-3-1993–In impugned order, S&R Commissioner had extensively dealt with matter and came to conclusion that land in question was allotted to J & K refugees and same could not be taken away from them–Held: Order passed in W.P. No. 217-R of 1987 cannot be made effective against respondents 1 to 3–Held further: Settlement Commissioner was legally right in restoring disputed land in favour of respondents 1 to 3–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1994 Lahore 264 PLD 1977 Lahore 202, PLD 1977 Lahore 747, PLD 1982 Lahore 831, PLD 1979 SC 985 and PLD 1991 SC 391 rel.
Evacuee agricultural land–Allotment of–Cancellation of–Challenge to–5000units of predecessor-in-interest of petitioners were trnsferred from Sahiwal to Gujranwala District on 2.12.1961 and were fully satisfied till 13.1963 when last allotment in village Kamoke to extent of 800 units was made–Any allotment obtained subsequently was without any pending entitlements-A perusal of Khata No.444 RLII of village Kalianwala shows that it has been tampered with liberally and without any inhibition and allotment is apparently forged and fabricated–Held: Allotment in village Kalianwala is to be excluded from valid allotments obtained by Mueenuddin Khan in Gujranwala being subsequent in time to allotment made in Kamoke–Helci further: There is nothing wrong with allotment made at Khata No.1045 R.LII of village Kamoke. PLJ 1992 Revenue 88
Evacuee house–Allotment to predecessor-in-interest of petitioners–House put to auction after non-deposit of price–Auction confirmed–Challenge to–Contention that house not being in compensation pool and being not available for transfer to refugees from other parts of India except Jammu & Kashmir, orders of Settlement Authorities were without jurisdiction and ineffective in law–Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners was afforded a number of opportunities to deposit remaining sale price and auction in favour of respondent was confirmed only when he had failed to do so–Orders of Settlement Authorities were capable of legal consequences and had, therefore, to be set aside in due course of Law–Held: After dismissal of writ petition and application to have abatement set aside, only course open to petitioners was to file appeal before Supreme Court and remedy in civil suit was not available to them. PLJ 1994 Lahore 111 Question of Deputy Settlement Commissioner while passing order impugned before High Court, did not notice physical division of property–He was conscious of order of Assistant Settlement Commissioner, impugned before him, about this physical aspect of division in reality of house into two parts, but his observation that “house is not divisible” was an absolute reersal and contradiction of this reality–Thus this observation or finding was without application of judicial mind–Held: Deputy Settlement Commissioner failed to exercise a power vested in him and his order was without lawful authority–Appeal accepted and house held as divisble- PLJ 1991 SC 263 Whether Settlement authorities have any right to go behind P.T.D. after a decade of its issuance and that too after repeal of Settlement Laws–Question of–It is nobody’s case that land now said to be in excess of three times plinth area did not belong to evacuee–Thus entire interest of evacuee over property was permanently transferred to respondent No- 1–What is use of issuance of Permanent Transfer Deed if it can be gone behind after a decade?–Held: If it were so permissible, there will be no certainty in rights of displaced persons and they will be put on tenterhooks at mercy of changing officials which is contrary to elementary principles of law and administration (per A-S-Salam J)- PLJ 1991 SC 1 Whether Settlement authorities were not competent to initiate proceedings after issuance of PTD–Question of–In proceedings held by Deputy Settlement Commissioner, legality or propriety of transfer of house to respondent No- 1- was not in issue in any way–Held: Single Judge was clearly in error when he declared order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner to be without jurisdiction on ground that after issuance of PTD, in absence of any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation Settlement authorities were not competent to re-open matter- (per majority). PLJ 1991 SC 1 Whether there were pending proceedings–Question of–Second order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner impugned in Constitutional petition was clearly without jurisdiction as office of D-S-C- had come to an end with repeal of law under which that office was established–There was no D-S-0 in existence in law on date when order was passed–For pending proceedings, repealing law had provided for appointment of “Notified Officer”–In this case, there were no pending proceedings–Held: After a decade, on a miscellaneous application, nobody could go behind PTD and certainly order of D-S-C. challenged in Constitutional petition was without jurisdiction and lawful authority. PLJ 1991 SC 1
Evacuee shop–C.S. Form for transfer of–Acceptance of–Challenge to–Contention that cancellation of highest bid of petitioner without show cause notice is illegal and nullity in eyes of law–Petitioner was heard at least by three notified officers before setting aside auction proceedings–Auction proceedings had not matured due to non-issuance of transfer documents in his favour–Notwithstanding delay in payment of transfer price by predecessor of private respondents, his entitlement was neither cancelled nor recalled–Property continued to remain available for transfer to predecessor of private respondents notwithstanding inaction on part of Settlement Authorities–Petitioner having been heard at length, he can have no grievance to say that he was condemned unheard–Held : Respondent No. 1 was perfectly justified in setting aside auction proceedings which were found ab-initio void–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 334
Excess land than entitlement of claimant– When a claimant having unsatisfied P.I. Units is pitched against a claimant who after having received his entitlement, seeks additional land or seeks to retain land already obtained in excess of his entitlement, former would have preference both in law and in propriety–Held further Appellant being informer and claimant, would be entitled to utilize land in dispute for satisfaction of his unsatisfied P.I. Units in preference to respondents retaining area in excess of their entitlement. PLJ 1992 SC 37 There is nothing on record to show that Khasra No.1628/573/299 was ever reserved for graveyard under order of any competent authority prior to 1980–It was shown as reserved for graveyard under decree of civil court in 1982–P.T.D. does not mention area of bungalow and just mentions that full property No.B-XI-3-S-11 was transferred to petitioner–Area of house transferred to petitioner is open to question and needs to be determined–Held: Contention that case cannot be re-opened after Settlement Authorities had become functus officio by issuing P.T.D., is not correct–Petition accepted and Notified Officer directed to determine area to which Petitioner was genuinely entitled. PLJ 1992 Revenue 126 Whether proceedings were incompetent having been initiated by Minister for Rehabilitation–Question of–True that occupants of land attached to house had filed their complaint with Minister for Rehabilitation but further proceedings were held under order of Chief Settlement Commissioner who could start proceedings on his own or on information received from any source–In this case, Deputy Settlement Commissioner who made impugned order, was proceeding under a directive issued to him by Borad of Revenue–Held. His (Deputy Settlement Commissioner’s) order could hardly be regarded as one without jurisdiction (per majority) PLJ 1991 SC 1
Form under Settlement Scheme No. VIII–Rejection of–Challenge to- Whether property in dispute was evacuee property or belonged to Muslim Owners–Question of–Settlement Commissioner did not properly dispose of revision petitions–It was his duty to have recorded a definite finding with regard to nature of property after recording evidence–He could have remanded case back to Deputy Settlement Commissioner to decide controversial question–Held: Order of Settlement Commissioner is illegal, without lawful authority and void–Held further Delay in filing writ petition is not to be seen with same rigours as bar of limitation particularly when impugned order is void and unjust–Petition accepted and case remanded. PLJ 1993 Lahore 66
Jammu and Kashmir Refugees–Allotment of agricultural land as maintenance grant to respondents–Subsequent allotment of same land to .petitioners–In appeal, subsequent allotment to petitioners was cancelled and respondent’s grant was restored–Whether land allotted on temporary basis to J & K refugees was excluded from compensation pool–Question of—Families migrating from occupied J & K were in first instance given free ration and ration-cards were issued to them–Thereafter ration-card holders were allotted evacuee agricultural land as a maintenance grant–Land so allotted was sold by Chief Settlement Commissioner to Ministry of Kashmir Affairs for satisfaction of claims of J & K refugees–Held: Evacuee agricultural land allotted to ration card holders, after its transfer to said Ministry, stood excluded from compensation pool–Held further: Allotment in favour of petitioners was
Jurisdiction of Civil Courts:- Under Section 41(2) of Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, civil court has to formulate questions and send them to Notified Officer for adjudication under Section 2(2) of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975–Held: Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide questions as to whether Khasra No 2807 containing plots was part of compensation pool or not; whether this Khasra number was acquired by means of Notification dated 18.8.1947 issued by Governor of Punjab under Section 42 of Punjab Town Improvement Act; whether plots were not evacuee property and whether transferees had submitted forms for transfer of plots in their possession to settlement authorities under Settlement Scheme No. VIII–Cases remanded for formulation of necessary questions. PLJ 1994 Note 78 PLD 1965 SC 698; PLD 1970 SC 326, 1982 PSC 907, 1988 SCMR 824 and 1991 SCMR 580 ref
Land under Forest – Department–Allotment of–Cancellation of—Application for–Acceptance of–Challenge to–From facts it is clearly established that before order of confirmation in favour of allottees, land in dispute was in possession of Forest Department which was having forest over it—Allotment was merely a paper transaction and did not create any legal vested right in favour of allottees–Held: Petitions are totally devoid of merits and have been filed to grab property of Forest Department being used for public purpose- Petitions dismissed. PLJ 1992 Lahore 33 PLJ 1974 Lahore 539 ref 1981 Law Notes SC 646 rel.
LH form of appellants–No clear cut order rejecting same passed–Property transferred to contesting respondents–Whether transfer order in favour of contesting respondents had any backing in law–Question of–Order of transfer was passed without due notice to appellants and without affording them an opportunity to be heard–If transfer of a house is ordered for compensating a claimant for losses suffered due to Partition of country, provisions of Section 10 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, are not attracted–Order of Chief Settlement Commissioner transferring property to respondents, is a nullity at law–Held: Result is that said property is still available for transfer and appellants are entitled to its transfer–Appeal accepted. PLJ 1992 SC 52
Non-payment of dues–Resumption of property–Challenge to—Petitioners were never served with any notice for payment of dues and no notice was ever issued before passing order of cancellation of allotment–Report of process server is fishy as no time and place is mentioned therein–Substituted service could not have been ordered at all–Service through registered post is also not proved–Held: Impugned order of cancellation of allotment is patently illegal and void ab-initio and subsequent disposal of property in favour of respondent No.2 is also void–Held further It cannot be said that writ petition which has been file against void and unfair order, is barred by principle of !aches- Petition accepted and case remanded. PLJ 1993 Lahore 71
Proposal for settlement:- Matter for settlement of land had not proceeded beyond its mere proposal in favour of petitioners — Order of confirmation of proposal never came into existence — Proposal for allotment of evacuee land did not transfer ownership rights in it in favour of proposed allottee which still vested in Central Government — Hence proposal for settlement of evacuee land did not invest petitioners with ownership rights in it — Held: Upon failing to prove clear title to land, petitioners were not entitled to consequential injunctive relief regarding their possession on land in dispute — Petition dismissed. PLJ 1993 Lahore 281
Remand Order:- Property in dispute was transferred to Petitioner No.3 by order dated 19.12.1977 — On bare reading of provisions of Section 2(2) of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, present case does not fall within category of pending cases — Sale or transfer in favour of Petitioner No.3 was under new dispensation which was cancelled by High Court in C. P. No. S-67 of 1978 –Consequently sale of said property by Petitioner No.3 in favour of Petitioners No.1 and 2 became ineffective and property again became available for disposal — Effect of setting aside order of High Court was that transfer order in favour of petitioner No. 3 and sale by him in favour of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 was revived, so they continued to be owners of property under sale deed and property ceased to be available for disposal under Repeal Act — Held: Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to deal with property in dispute which was not available for disposal and title whereof stood perfected in favour of Petitioners No.1 and 2. PLJ 1993 Karachi 230
Transfer to urban area and allotment of urban garden –Mukhbari application against–Contention that dunces of respondent No. 2 having not been impleaded, petition is not maintainable–Said donees filed a writ petition which was disposed of in view of orders passed in writ petition which is presently under consideration–Held: Domes of respondent No. 2 cannot claim that they were not party to and were unaware of proceedings in High Court–Held further: Both allotments were obtained fraudulently by respondents–Allotments cancelled. PLJ 1993 Revenue 6
Un-authorised possession of predecessor-in-interest of petitioners–Non-submission of form by–Effect of–Non-filing of form does not appeal to reason–To such a vigilent person, this lapse cannot be attributed–Filing of form under Scheme VI is meant to facilitate determination of right of un-authorised. occupant within a time prescribed by Settlement Commissioner and was not a condition precedent for determination of persons who were entitled to transfer–Held: There was no warrant for coming to conclusion that form submitted by predecessor-in-interest of petitioners was a forged document and so he was not entitled to transfer–Petition accepted. PLJ 1991 Lahore 437
Verified claim of petitioners’ grand-father–Temporary allotment of land against–Later on same land allotted and confirmed to other persons–Claim of alternate land–Land temporarily allotted to grand-father of petitioners was later on allotted to some other persons without giving an opportunity of being heard to him or his successors-in-interest–Petitioner was minor at time of death of his grand-father and father which explains delay–Held: Allotment of land in lieu of temporarily allotted land, is a vested right and cannot be denied–Held further: Claim of petitioners’ grand father for rural land, is found to be pending within meaning of Section 2 (2) of Land Settlement Act–ADC(G) Lahore Cantt. directed to satisfy claim of petitioners. PLJ 1992 Revenue 120