Find a Lawyer

CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR ,AUQAF,SINDH,THANDI SARAK,HYDERABAD versus MASOOMA

The Civil Court in pursuant to the Procurement made under the Articles 2 (d), 67 and 17 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 85 (3) of the West Pakistan Dedicated Property Ordinance, Section 7, West Pakistan Dedicated Property Ordinance. Failure, 1961 Impact Controversial property was actually owned by the provincial government and the plaintiff was paying the rent in error, as was the civil court in favor of the plaintiff, and the High Court officials objected. That decision was upheld. In the civil court jurisdiction, the authorities were not empowered to seize any property other than dedicated property under the provisions of the West Pakistan Dedicated Property Ordinance, 1961, where the property was not a dedicated property, It was not necessary for the plaintiff to follow the procedure provided for under section 7 of the West Pakistan Dedicated Property Ordinance, 1961; the civil court sued for an appeal for non-restriction under section 17 of the West Pakistan Dedicated Property Ordinance, 1961. Prevented from enjoying a holiday. jobs for advocates from Feroz Watan lawyer