Find a Lawyer

KHWAJ DIN versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE/CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB

The vacant property and IDPs Act (1975) section 2 (2) was revised on the Civil Procedure Code (V 1908), A XLVII, R1 and Section 114 High Court's decision and the vacancy of the vacant lot. The file related to was not made available to the High Court during the preliminary litigation which challenged the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and was affirmed by the High Court records relating to the allotment containing the Secretary, Settlement and Rehabilitation Question. , Which details the fake and fake allotments of informants. Their fraud was exposed and it was specifically stated that criminal investigations related to fake allotment were being conducted by the Anti-Corruption Establishment while investigating the persons and their role in making such allotment. Such a report, submitted by the Secretary, Settlement and Rehabilitation, has been interpreted as frustration by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Secretary's unrelated report was in accordance with a record inquiry in connection with various individuals' land fraud. The inquiry was erroneously ignored by the Chief Settlement Commissioner while unknown The settlement approved under Chief Commissioner had no authority to review the order. The predecessor in the office under which he handed over the matter to the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), the Settlement Commissioner, besides the Chief Settlement Commissioner observed that the pending criminal proceedings before the Anti-Corruption Establishment were also illegal, the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Did not have the authority to declare the criminal action pending before the Anti. Corruption Establishment illegal or jurisdictional famous high court advocate from Malakand lawyer