Jurisdiction under a settlement scheme must rest with the designated authority, and notices by another officer were invalid.

Notices issued under the settlement scheme by an officer other than the designated authority were without jurisdiction because the statutory power to verify the application and determine the amount payable vested only in the authority appointed for the relevant area. Those notices were therefore set aside. A later rejection order passed while the writ petitions were pending and during subsistence of the court's stay could not stand; the respondents undertook to withdraw it, and the applications were directed to be reconsidered afresh by the proper designated authority under the scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notices issued by an authority other than the designated authority under the settlement scheme were without jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the subsequent rejection order passed during the subsistence of the stay order could stand and whether the applications required reconsideration by the proper authority.

Issue (i): Whether the notices issued by an authority other than the designated authority under the settlement scheme were without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The scheme vested the power to verify the application and determine the amount payable in the designated authority, meaning the authority appointed under Section 3 and exercising jurisdiction over the relevant area. Since the proper authority was the Joint Commissioner and the impugned notices were issued by the Assistant Commissioner, the notices were issued by an officer lacking the statutory jurisdiction to act under the scheme.

Conclusion: The notices were without jurisdiction and were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the subsequent rejection order passed during the subsistence of the stay order could stand and whether the applications required reconsideration by the proper authority.

Analysis: The rejection order was passed while the writ petitions were pending and despite the subsistence of the stay granted by the Court. The respondents undertook to withdraw that order, and the petitioner was directed to appear before the correct designated authority for a decision on the Samadhan application in accordance with the scheme.

Conclusion: The rejection order was to be withdrawn, and the applications were to be decided afresh by the designated authority.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded on the ground of want of jurisdiction, and the matter was left to be determined afresh by the competent authority under the settlement scheme.

---