Find a Lawyer

HASHIM ALI versus MST. BHIRAWAN

Section 114 Property Rights, Grants of Occupied Tenants, without notice to Landlords Tenants (to the extent of their share of the land in their tenancy) to the extent of 11/16 shares while the remaining 5/16 shares to the applicants (landlords). Names that were allottees of the land were decided by the two courts. The position of the tenants in the possession of the applicants was that the authorities had illegally changed the suit land in favor of the respondents without notice to the applicant. The cancellation of the allotment in favor of the applicant in the interest of the applicant, where the property rights in Soi were granted by the practice of the law on the land, the respondents (occupying tenants), in the present case, before the approval of the controversial change mutation. Or its successor will not be required to give notice of interest, only because of the process of law the amending and updating of the Revenue Record by incorporating a resultant change in the ownership of the parties, as the respondent was not settled And were the claimants under the rehabilitation scheme and no allotment was proposed in their favor nor were they Was made on the basis of a claim from The aforementioned scheme, therefore, did not require applicants to give notice before the change was approved, so the applicants failed to divert the attention of the High Court to any part of the decision where it could be made clear that any of the law Whether the clause was violated or any procedure was erroneous at trial, both the courts below examined the evidence correctly and evaluated the evidence and their results were b. The High Court based on the evidence advocate for immigration from Depal Pur lawyer