Find a Lawyer

MST. SHAH BEGUM versus PROVINCE OF SINDH

Article 8 Constitution of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act 1957 (1973), Article 185 (3) Review of the Board of Revenue Scotland was approved by the victims of Mangla Dam under the scheme and in some areas, small khatadars, heirs and lords. Was allocated for Respondents in the area claimed that the land was in their farming because the heirs, small plots, which the government had allotted to them, but inadvertently, their land was allotted to the victims under the scheme and such fact. The notice of the Board of Revenue was brought to the notice and after the confirmation of the Colonization Officer, the members, visiting the site in the presence of the Board of Revenue, exercised powers under section 8, the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act 1957. Reviewed his first order and observed that in view of the documentary evidence, mention of respondents' possession The record, however, cannot be left to such evidence and it is stated that the defendant is entitled to retain the area in his possession which will not be disturbed by the High Court, in which case the proper context. I understand and reject the constitutional application filed against the Board of Revenue order with valid and enthusiastic reason, not to read any legal jurisdictional error, material illegal or misrepresentation. Was a question of public importance, as has been considered, after being involved under Article 185 (3) of the Constitution. , The Supreme Court dismissed the leave application to appeal against the High Court order. The court lawer from fb area from Mardan lawyer