Find a Lawyer

ABDUL QADIR versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE

Sections 2 (2) and 4 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Implementation of the final order reopening the matter in the jurisdiction of the notification officer, the Supreme Court order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has been finalized in the Supreme Court. Variations: Certified by the Assistant Commissioner in favor of the applicant but eventually in exercise of the amending jurisdiction, the Board of Revenue separately (stating that the matter was passed to a notified officer appointed by the provincial government). Should have taken) the respondents in the present case; again extending the matter to the Board of Revenue. They were trying to avoid the implementation of the order and effect. Respondents submitted that a decision on the applicants' rights was yet to be decided. The notified officer had no recourse to the record that was held by those who retained revenge because Section 2 (2) of the Iowa Property and Homelessness Act (Cancellation) Act 1975 was not enforced. , The Board of Revenue referred to it in section 4 of the Evacuee Property and Homelessness Act (repealed) Act 1975. For some purposes, but the board may refrain from interfering with the original context of the case, otherwise the boxes will be confused in another round of litigation, and the techniques should not be obstructed in providing justice. The rights that come out of it should be violated. A commitment by the country's highest court to frustrate the final and final nature of the orders passed in the first round of litigation until the order of the Supreme Court approved by the Board of Revenue law firms from Mustang lawyer