Find a Lawyer

INSHAF HUSSAIN SHAH versus CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act of 1974, the Sections 39 and 43 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Administration, section 39 and 43, in a writ petition, deputy custodian claims that the dispute has been registered in relation to the property. , The plaintiffs / respondents were able to prove a negative possession of the property in the dispute, and the discovery of the Deputy Custodian was confirmed by a Custodian applicant, who is the legal descendant of a man who landed on the land 40 years ago in the dispute. The stock, which had already been sold, said it challenged the accuracy of the consolidation A. After a period of nearly 24 years through the review petition, Deputy Custodian and Custodian's inquiries were dismissed by petitioner's review petition, who challenged that the custodian's order was retained in the writ petition. There was no legal title that would challenge the validity of the Custodian's order. The request for review under section 39 of Azad Jammu was filed by the Custodian. The D Kashmir Administration for Evacuation Property Act 1957 had the exclusive jurisdiction to declare any person or property evacuated or evacuated if the property was declared unconstitutional in the dispute. If given, the caretaker government, under Section 43 (a) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Administration Act, 1957, was legally authorized to file a petition before the Division Bench of the High Court Rehabilitation Department and The deputy supervisor and guard had a competing party if the Department of Rehabilitation disputed I have a complaint about a property not being vacated famous high court advocate from Usta Mohammad lawyer