Find a Lawyer

SHEIKH FATEH MUHAMMAD versus ABDUL AZIZ

Section 2 (a), 5, 6, 13 and 23 of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act, 1991, for the pre-emption of the suit, because the suit was vacated before the land, the courts below had permanently rejected the suit. This suit property was not vacant and did not provide the required details. According to Section 2 (a) of the Pre-Impression Act 1993, immovable property, which is located in a village or urban area, shall not be included in agricultural land, except that the civic real estate is covered by agricultural land only because it is located in it. Will not Although an urban area government declared that there would be no pre-emptive right in relation to certain properties mentioned in Sections 23 (a) and (b) of the Punjab Pre-Impression Act, 1991, but in the present case it is Was not established. In this regard, the notification was presented by the Government Jamabandi in the court which clearly showed that the suit land is still subject to land, neither the revenue suit property is in urban areas nor within the cantonment. The Counterfeit and Local Government or Cantonment Board did not enforce any law under which the defendant, before the possession of the case, presented the witnesses with the exception of the occupation law, which proved that the plaintiff had sought probate and probate. And there was a slight contradiction in the evidence that the witnesses had no evidence. As a result of the misrepresentation of statements made by the plaintiff's witnesses, the conclusions of the court's concurrence were set aside by the High Court, and in this case the plaintiff was instructed to pay the remaining amount of the gold award. Submit on time law firms from Rajana lawyer