Find a Lawyer

QAMAR DIN versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD

The Special Relief Act, 1877, entitled the declaration in section 42 of the Government Land Colonization (Punjab) Act (V12 of 1912), sections 10, 12, 32 and 36, claiming that he was in possession of the Ihata in dispute and that he was the defendant. Alias, who was merely the plaintiff's licensee, had no right or no interest in claiming that the plaintiff did not claim to be the owner of the Ihata in the dispute, but his claim was that he was an official. With allotment from the cooperative society, Ehta was entitled to maintain the record. The name of the Housing Society was never exchanged and was not shown as a government land. So far the plaintiff's position as a tenant of the state, if he was upset at all, was not the appropriate forum for civil court, but the collector before whom he could dispute. In the circumstances, the appellate court below correctly stated in the circumstances that the plaintiff lacks the jurisdiction of the civil court to prosecute the case and that the plaintiff, who was not the owner of the dispute in dispute, had any claim. No right or title to do lawer from fb area from Qasba Gujrat lawyer