Find a Lawyer

MAJ. (RETD.) TARIQ JAVED AFRIDI versus THE STATE

The provisions of section 10 (a) / 9 (a) (vi) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 worked in double capacity, the first Managing Director, CDA and the second collector under the colonies of Government Land (Punjab). As such, 1912 in its first capacity was undoubtedly the authority to approve any order or to take action within the limits of the powers that it had as the managing director of the CDA, but in its second capacity earlier There were no options or options at all. As a responsible law-knowing person, in charge of granting the powers of the collector under the Government Lands (Punjab) Colonization Act, 1912, he should have waited until he was actually given the powers of the collector. And then he could legally use it accordingly. All orders passed by the accused in his capacity as a law collector were in the eyes of the law and the Board of Revenue did not choose to correct the public interest, so this ad was seriously criticized. Has been made because the allottees of the land and other persons who were given proprietary rights or in whose favor the sale deeds were not acquired proper titles and were going to be involved in litigation and all The exercise has to happen. This was done on public expenditure. In the process of allotment of land to the affected persons, the granting of property rights and execution of sale deeds, the accused did not receive any special benefit. Myself, but they benefited from the aforementioned Allies, etc. immigration advocates phone number from Shakargarh lawyer