Find a Lawyer

REVERAND CATHOLIC BISHOP OF LAHORE versus MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, PAKISTAN

Paragraph 8, 17 and 32 (2) (b) of the Martial Law Regulation 1972, restoration of the exempted land before the application of the Land Reform Regulation, 1959 (MLR64), followed by the deputy commissioner's release thereafter. Resumed with order Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR 115) The request for an automotive amendment jurisdiction to reject the Deputy Land Commissioner's order was dismissed by the Chief Land Commissioner for a time restriction, according to the Chief Land Commissioner. The amendment filed against the decision was dismissed by the Federal Land Commission. Along with the limitations, the merits also considered the appeals petition in the constitutional petition stating that they had received exemption from the re-building because of the urban land in which the buildings are high, though this request was not received by the appellants. ? The review has been considered by the Federal Land Commission, and the Federal Land Commission's decision not to have a permanent remand case would have been considered by the Landland Reform Regulation 1959 (M.L.), if the Federal Land Commission High Court had considered the existence of an exception order. R64) was not required to be remanded to the Federal Land Commission, which should then be considered in accordance with the provisions contained in paragraph 32. (2) (b) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR 115), which protected the applicant from the exemption already granted under paragraph 32, therefore, the Reform Regulation 1972, therefore, the circumstances. Placed in the field. property advocate from Kabir Wala lawyer