Find a Lawyer

DR. MUHAMMAD EHTESHAM versus SAJID LATEEF SETHI

Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 18 \ Proof of Land Compensation The marble factory was running on land acquired by the authorities for the acquisition of land by the authorities and the objectionable crushing machine was not accepted. And other superstructures that had the ability to be removed and installed. An amount of Rs. 53,737 36 36 was paid on the goods removed under the objection and the accuracy was fixed to justify the loss suffered by the object engineer of the private firm where the Engineer Department and its Not affiliated with a representative. The report was based on superficial views and without the evidence, the testimony of the department receiving such reports could not be disbelieved and the referee court rightly relied on its review, as well as the super-structure. The compensation was increased by Rs. 3,87,000. 15 acquisition mandatory acquisition charges and 6% simple interim from the date of physical possession till payment of compensation in court is valid under the law Object object has failed to provide proof that it received Rs. Has suffered damages as it claimed in its objection request that the appeal be dismissed. divorce advocates from Naseerabad lawyer