Find a Lawyer

KALU KHAN versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE

Articles 10 and 13 of the West Pakistan Stability Holding Ordinance 1960 (1973), Article 199 Constitutional Application Holdings Stabilization Authority certified by the Authority to finalize the scheme as a member, board. Was confirmed. Revenue, which was the final authority, confirmed the same and the respondents did not challenge the affirmation, which previously supported the proceedings, which again appealed and the case was aggravated by the appeal collector. But the Additional Commissioner (Stability) accepted the amendment. The order of the Collector petitioner against the order of the Collector has been adversely affected, the revision was filed before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), the Board of Revenue issued such order Constitutional application was delayed by the first period After the authority reached the final threshold, no further action could be taken by the respondents who were party to the previous litigation when one appeared before the Les Tribunal. When it comes to deciding, a fair mind and consideration must be received according to the law order Should. ) The Board of Revenue did not clarify the application of the mind regarding the fact and the circumstances of the matter because the petitioner filed a review request by the Member (Judicial), on the order of litigation approved by the Board of Revenue. I was removed without warning, which could not be considered. Was judged as just, and legal, illegal and had no right to a constitutional jurisdiction. best law firm from Lalshanra lawyer