Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD TAJ versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE

The Martial Law Regulation 1972 No 115 Para 25 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) was dismissed on the basis of partial pre-arrest and dismissal of the case and pre-arrest by the Additional Commissioner on appeal. The trial was ordered. The amendment rejected the constitutional petition against a decree certified by the Board of Revenue, two points of review, pre-empowerment of the Revenue Officers' Luxury Standards and Islam Reform Regulations under the provisions of paragraph 25 Other evidence never taken before the High Court due to conflicts was considered by the High Court on the basis of the evidence and they were claimed to be partners with Khotan, claiming that the pre-emptive right was denied, The claimant was not obliged to take part in the preceding section. Therefore, it was handed over to the defendants (sellers), therefore, the defendants urged that it would have the right of eliminating the plaintiffs only and only in the shareholder share of the field and the number of certain deficits in its cultivation. There was no legal flaw in the decision, under which the High Court refused to exercise constitutional powers against the orders. Before the circumstances have been refused to appeal famous high court advocate from Shangla lawyer