Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SARWAR versus MUHAMMAD ALI

Sections 22 and 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and the Homelessness Act (Cancellation) Act (XIV of 1975), section 2 vacant property allotment, before the cancellation of the vacancy The lawsuits and appeals against this order were finally settled by the notification officer under the provisions of the Homeownership and Displaced Persons Act (1975) Act, pending such allotment in the civil suit. Was admitted for which the civil court rejected it. The lack of jurisdiction and the trial court's order upheld were upheld by the appellate court, under the review jurisdiction under section 115, the CPC allowed a review petition and the case was decided without a new hearing. From the outset, the trial was referred to the trial court. With regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the matter and decide the case, the decision of the Civil Review by the High was not appropriate on the High Court merit. In the present case, the question regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 22 for the High Court. The decision was to read with section 25 of the Landless Settlements Act, 1958. In order to attend to the issue raised in the civil suit relating to the matter, whether under the section 25 of the Land Disposal (Land Settlement) Act 1958, which was passed on the orders passed by the Settlement Authorities, there is no veil in the present case. Was not available. The repeal of the eviction laws in 1974 and the failure to commit such a legal jurisdiction, the High Court upheld the High Court-approved order in the main matter relating to maintaining this case. law firms from Satyana Bangla lawyer