Find a Lawyer

UMAR DARAZ KHAN versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (INDUSTRIES), LAHORE

Sections 11 and 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 25 and 199 Constitutional petition were transferred to two different parties in connection with the payment of property value through settlement transfer department settlement to U and his brothers and H. During the approval of the Constitution, the parties agreed to change the proportion of such shares in the ratio of 50: 50, which resulted in 63% of HK and 47% of the U. and its brothers agreeing to settle the High Court. Directed to issue a new transfer order. The Settlement Commissioner treated the U.'s legal heritage as a fresh transfer and demanded a transfer of up to 47% of its value on the market value of the property. The property was a negative record of such results, as the UK name was mentioned in the Allotment Order of 18 5 1954 and it was allotted. At the same time, the Settlement Commissioner, along with others, had lost the fact that the constitutional application was not filed by Yu but was filed by HK's heirs, neither the filing nor the injunction. Continuing would have violated the rights of the parties, with which the litigation had ended. The reasons for dealing with the U.'s legal heritage in dealing with a compromised arms commissioner, which is different from H's legacy in the payment of property transfer costs, were incorrect and the irrevocable unresolved order had no legal effect. Not declared best advocate from Noor kot lawyer