Sections 24, 30, 32 and 34 of the unlawful occupant petitioner claimed that he was entitled to give ownership rights to all tenants under the original tenant because he had prepared the land and he was entitled to collect the government dues. Was ready for And that it was not heard because he was not issued a notice under section 24 of the Act but nothing was available on the record that the applicant was a tenant under the original allotment parcel of measles. The Board of Revenue did not consider such a test necessary. Whether the sub-tenant was entitled to grant ownership of the property under the scheme to which he excluded the revision request upon expiry of the original allotment based on his claim
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
