Find a Lawyer

WALAYAT BEGUM versus REVISING AUTHORITY, M.D.A., MIRPUR

Allotment of Plots of Sections 27 and 48 (4) (5) Plots, Allotment of Plots of Mirpur Development Authority, Subsequently, canceled by the Assurance and Authority Authority, such allotment was granted by the Mirpur Development Authority as moderator. ? And, therefore, the illegal constitutional application filed by the Allies against the revocation order approved by the Revising Authority was rejected by the High Court; the authority to review by the Allies was entitled to the allotment made by the Allotment. The reviewing authority set up to test it was worth it. The Mirpur Development Authority, the Chairman, the Mirpur Development Authority, which had delegated allotment powers under Section 27, Mirpur Development Authority Ordinance 1974, was not the allotment, but the committee, which was capable of examining the allotment only. Was created. Had acted outside its jurisdiction to cancel, in section 27 of the Mirpur Development Authority Ordinance 1974, the Mirpur Development Authority chairmen were not given the option of allotment of plots, but had powers, duties or duties of the chairman. Or dealt with duties or an officer of the Mirpur Development Authority. The Authority was empowered not only to examine the allotment, but also to pass appropriate orders in connection with the allotment given by the Chairman of the Allotment Committee and the Mirpur Development Authority, as the Authority was the High Court and the Revising Authority. As delegate, no illegal work was done. Ineligible and illegal allotment how to become a advocate from Balakot lawyer