Find a Lawyer

BEHRAM KHAN versus CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY

Section 3, 18A & 43 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rehabilitation Act, 1974, Section III of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VII of 1974), sections 42 and 44 of the Pakistan (Administration for Vacant Property) Act, 1957. The Court of Appeal, which was earlier allotted for appellant, was dismissed on the ground that it did not fall within the definition of local helplessness. Additional Custodian found that the appellant was entitled to allotment of land as a refugee from disputed occupied Kashmir, along with the custodian and the High Court, which had settled a separate case. On the basis that the Additional Custodian or Custodian has no jurisdiction to investigate whether a person is a migrant and is entitled to land allotment on this land because nature's determination was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities. The appellant contradicted it. Initially, the appellant of the applicants in the dispute claimed to be entitled to the local dispute as to the land in dispute, but later claimed to be entitled to it, appealing to the Supreme Court as a refugee appellant. In the meantime, he made a very contradictory request, which was alien to his original stand, in which a copy of the transcript was made by the appellant. It is claimed that he was allotted his name by the Complaint Authority, which was not canceled by any authority. The appellant could not present a record showing the allotment in his favor and stated that the appellant had requested the appellant to appear before the Supreme Court or in a brief statement. Picked up by them famous supreme court advocate from Jhand lawyer