Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AZIZ versus MUHAMMAD NAZIR

RR 3 (4), 7, 8, 9 and 10 to regularize the notes to AJK and grant of the Pure Land Ordinance, 1974, section 3 of the AJK and the Interim Constitution Act (VIII 1974), Articles 42 and 44. The grant of the proprietary rights, the Board of Revenue, accepted the review petition filed against the allotment in favor of the defendants, resulting in the collector granting the property rights to the appellants of the 12 kanal measure, the High Court affecting the defendants. The Constitution accepted the constitutional petitions and rejected both such orders that the High Court granted the 12 kanal of land in favor of the applicants. These rights were abrogated, while they were challenged by the respondents only to the extent of 4 kanals, because such order of the High Court was bad to the extent of 8 kanals while the 3 (4) AJK grant was open ground. Rent and Lease) Under Rules 7, 8, 9 and 10 of 1985, the district collector had jurisdiction to grant the open land to the facts, requiring the identification purposes law in favor of a person to a certain extent. It was just that the collector would send the assistant commissioner for a spot inspection and report whether the applicant was eligible for land clearance and when he was eligible. When he saw Collector. The approval in favor of the respondents observed all the formalities required by the Law Order of the Member, the Board of Revenue violated the law, so there was no reasonable reason for the grant order to be separated in favor of the respondents. Was done Regulation of the AJK notes and the requirements of Section 3 of the Pure Land Ordinance 1974 were based on misunderstanding which was excluded. best advocate from Jampur lawyer