Find a Lawyer

SAID MUHAMMAD versus KARAM DAD

Section 11 and 141 of the Code of Civil Code 1908 and the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), sections 135 and 141 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Authorization Act (VIII of 1974), sections 42 and 44 of the Judiciary for division of land again. The Applicable Rule was previously filed by the Appellant for the distribution of the joint petition in the dispute; it was dismissed by the Revenue Authorities on the ground that the appellant occupied more land than his share, not the land distribution. May be. After the dismissal of the application by the appellant after sixteen years, the Additional Collector had affected the principles of Race Judeta on this basis, but the Commissioner and Member Board of Revenue rejected the Additional Collector's order that the principles of Race Judeta be rejected. Was retained. The High Court did not apply to the division proceedings in the constitutional jurisdiction which rejected the decision passed by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue Judiciary's principle applicable to revenue and subsequently applied to the appellant for the distribution of land. The application filed was withheld under Section 11, the CPC's validity provisions of section 11, CPC were applied only to cases heard by a court established under the Code of Conduct. The Revenue Officer did not include the subtitles in the proceedings of the partition, there was no court and there was no case for partition request within the meaning of section 11, the provisions of CPC 3 11, the CPC divided on his power to distribute. Did not apply. It is not applied by the courts where the code of conduct did not apply, because once the disputes have been settled, no one immigration advocates phone number from Kallat lawyer