Find a Lawyer

M.S.SIDDIQUI versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN

In response to Articles 2 and 3 of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 of the Evacuation Property and Homelessness Act (1975), Article 199, the person responding to the constitutional application was initially allotted the property on a temporary basis and thereafter As the transfer agreement was issued in the name of the applicant there was no guarantee of property auction by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner but the settlement rules had already been terminated and only information was given. Veterans were eligible to decide pending or remand cases under Section 2 of the Provincial Government under Section 3 of the Act Although the civil property available under the scheme developed under him was able to be demolished, no scheme had been developed by him yet and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner unilaterally decided to auction the property. Which was completely illegal in the eyes of the law and in this way of malice. The auction did not give the applicant any rights or title, after the cancellation, then the order on the basis of such auction after the cancellation of the withdrawal rules was also invalid and without any jurisdiction, the rights of the applicant. The order after the auctioneering authorities in I did not rightly grant the petitioner the right to waive. The auctioneer was entitled to claim a refund of the money paid by him to the department through the balance advocate from Gaggo Mandi lawyer