Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NASIM ANWAR AND OTHERS versus ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VEHARI

Schedule, Para 24 Constitution of Pakistan: 1973), Article 185 (3) Estoppel Applicability Rule Allotment 27 years after the deposit of the sale price Applicants filed a constitutional petition in the High Court when the settlement authorities Was. Cancellation of allotment for non-submission of dues The High Court upheld the petitioner's position that no notice was issued to the predecessor in the interest of the applicants, so the cancellation of the allotment was against the law for filing the constitutional petition. The default will not be negated in respect of non-payment of sale price by predecessor in the interest of the applicants at the time the applicants were reluctant to request that they be allowed to pay the sale price of the property after 27 years. Was. The decision to extend the term was valid in rejecting Pettee's request that the assailants, since they could not be allowed to take their personal premium, where the search by the High Court was in accordance with the law or the record. Was not based on misrepresentation or reading of the evidence, the Supreme Court refused to take exception to the demand notice, which was approved by the settlement authorities in connection with the fact finding and validated by the High Court. For proper, valid and reasonable reasons, no interference is guaranteed by the Supreme Court. how to become a advocate from Sukkur lawyer