Find a Lawyer

SHAMIM AKHTAR versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD

Code of Conduct 1908 Section 115 Reviewed Applicants / Plaintiffs Allotted to the Authority Petitioner / Plaintiff Applying for Transfer of Plots to Their Children The petition, which was overlooked, did not extend the construction during this building which There was some extension for Through the said authority, the applicant / claimant canceled the plot allotment, canceled the interest charges and canceled the transfer of the same to the children of the allottee, without giving any notice to the applicant / plaintiff. The applicant / plaintiff who was dismissed and the appellant met the same fate, in the absence of any appropriate decision to deny the transfer and before requesting the applicant / plaintiff to complete the extension period. Of course, the authority could not make an immediate decision. Rejecting the transfer and also resuming the authority's plot action, therefore, was extremely arbitrary, unfair and against you, enforcing the law where the previous application had already been approved and included in the scheme. Other allottees were allowed to extend as well, in the absence of special circumstances or unusual reasons, the authority may not discriminate with the applicant / plaintiff. The documentary evidence was misinterpreted, the law was misused, and the verdict was restored, and, thus, the High Court upheld the verdict of material misconduct and legal weaknesses and set aside the judgments of the courts below. went. jobs for fresh advocates from Dhirkot lawyer