SHAHNAZ AKHTAR versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE
Government Lands (Punjab) Colonization Act 1912 Section 10 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional petition asks the Colony Assistant Collector to apply that the allotment of Ahata is required. Not only was this question also for Alta Allotment. was present. The petitioner was allotted and the respondent's request was rejected by the Colony Assistant / Collector, on this Report of the Assistant Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner Member (Colonies), also dismissed the Appeal of the Respondent by the Board of Revenue. It was reported that the Companions had the last day about the respondent. After 6/7 years, building the house unofficially ordered that Ihata be allotted to the respondents, the Board of Revenue had completely failed to advertise to the respondents who had been allocated for Ihaa's allotment. Submitted its application stating that Ihaa was not only vacant but also that no party had any legal proceedings to disclose any officer's report if any such party had disclosed the report itself. If your documents conflict with the members of the Board of Revenue, it is based on the fact that according to their position, It was not. The respondents came into possession shortly after the respondents had submitted an application for an allotment, which improved the respondents' competence during litigation and modified such amendments to the jurisdiction. I could not take notice of the Board of Revenue. It was primarily to determine the legality, regularity or ownership of any decision or action of a subordinate forum, and it was not
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
