Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAVEZ KHAN versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER, ATTOCK

R14 (i) Punjab Local Government Election Rules, 2000, R18 (3) Transfer of Property Act (IV 1882), Art 199 Constitution Nomination Papers, Declaration of Assets nomination rejected by the appellate authority on this basis. It was held that the assets declared by the candidate did not include any of the properties which were present in the name given by the candidate, though these properties were in the name of the candidate, but were sold through a single unregistered process. Had been taken over and handed over to the shopkeepers where the payment of property and the delivery of the property was completed, This transaction will be sold under the provisions of section 54 of the Property Act, 1882. Regardless of whether it was oral or a legal issue in the sale between the seller and the seller, the Returning Officer will not be required. The question to go into the defective title question is whether the property under consideration in the document will be considered the property of the candidate through which the ownership rights have been transferred to him and will affect his candidacy without proper. Will not be responsible. Determining the title question through an evidence-based forum where the evidence relied on by the parties was rejected, in the present title, there will be no conclusive evidence of the nominee, when entering into a sales transaction and the seller's The omission of the title in the official record does not invalidate the transaction nor does it affect the candidate's candidature, since the candidate did not have such disputed assets on the day of filing the nomination papers and Get rid of online advocate from Kandiaro lawyer