Find a Lawyer

HAFIZ MUHAMMAD SADIQ versus MUHAMMAD RASHID

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974 Section 42 West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Section 175 Rules of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court, 1978, A XLVI, R 1 Civil Procedure Code (VV 1908), O XLVII, R1 Review of the decision of the Supreme Court ordered by the Shamlat Dehland Revenue Officers on such ground that the eviction of the defendant was received by the Commissioner after receipt of the commission as the Courier's Board of Revenue filed an appeal by the petitioner. I ordered the status quo, but later took action against the defendant. Violations of such an order allowed the High Court to respond to the constitutional petition filed by the respondent, stating that the Revenue Officers had no jurisdiction to exclude the respondent, who was a co-accused in such a case, in the court. Aaliyah upheld the High Court decision. On this basis, it was demanded that the constitutional petition become objectionable after withdrawing the unclean order passed by the Board of Revenue. That the tehsildar, collector and commissioner were not enforced as essential parties in the constitutional petition, that the High Court legally justified the involvement of the Board of Revenue, which did not approve any final order. was not. The property and the Supreme Court wrongly disputed the dispute between the parties, treating the defendant as a member of the proprietary body. Whether the Board of Revenue withdrew its order was a question of fact, which was not raised before the High Court or the Supreme Court. The defendant's claim of having a co-op and possession of such land was admitted in a previous litigation and the High Court us immigration advocates from Lahore lawyer