Settlement scheme rejection under section 8(2) restores the pending appeal and requires merits-based hearing.

Non-payment of the dues determined under the settlement scheme after issuance of Form-II intimation was treated as a rejection under section 8(2), because a certificate of settlement arises only on payment under section 8(1). The bar on appellate or revisional proceedings under section 11 operates only until settlement is granted, and the proviso restores the ordinary appellate process where settlement is refused under section 8(2). On that basis, the pending appeals were required to be restored and heard on merits, and the contrary order treating the matter as already settled could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether rejection of an application under the settlement scheme after issuance of intimation in Form-II for non-payment of the determined dues was referable to section 8(2) of the settlement Act, and whether the proviso to section 11 required the pending appeal to be heard on merits and restored.

Analysis: The settlement scheme contemplated an application under section 5, determination by the designated authority under section 6(2), issuance of a certificate of settlement only upon payment under section 8(1), and rejection of the application by written order under section 8(2) where no question of settlement arose. The bar on appellate or revisional proceedings under section 11 operated only until a certificate of settlement was issued, while the proviso restored the ordinary appellate process where settlement was refused by an order under section 8(2). The rejection in the present case followed failure to comply with the Form-II intimation and therefore remained a rejection under section 8(2), not a deemed withdrawal of the appeal under section 10. The earlier order treating the matter as already settled was inconsistent with the record and could not sustain dismissal of the appeal.

Conclusion: The rejection attracted section 8(2), the proviso to section 11 applied, and the appeals were required to be restored and decided on merits.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and restoration of the pending appeals was directed on compliance with the stipulated deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a settlement application is rejected after non-compliance with the demand issued under the settlement scheme, the rejection falls within section 8(2), and the statutory bar on the pending appeal does not survive once settlement is refused.

---