CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF versus SYED GHULAM MOHY-UD-DIN
Sections 7, 11 and 2 (e) were heard by the Chief Administrator periodically before the Appeal Notification Trial Court which put this notification on the ground that the disputed property is not a dedicated property because it has Non-Muslim was declared legitimate The preparation of the material on the record did not prove that the property was a dedicated property for which this notification could be given for control, so the record of the revenue was inconsistent and also based on the statements of the witnesses. There can be no safe dependency. On the record and the definition of waqf property included in section 2 (e) of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979, it was made clear that the decision taken by the trial court could not be declared illegal so that the arrest warrant for the intervention of the High Court was the same. Were excluded according to.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
