Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SADIQ versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB

Section 10 and 30 allotment of land ownership rights, as a landlord tenant, a land allotment in dispute under the Temporary Farming Scheme of 1979, said that they applied for property rights under the scheme, but denied them that right. They were not permanent. During the approval of the landowner's 1977 allotment application in dispute with Rabi, there was another scheme corn in 1983, the fixed date for cultivation was Rabi 1980 Albeti could not later apply for the grant of proprietary rights. Said its previous application is pending. Decision He subsequently filed an application under the scheme following the decision of his previous application, but for that reason was excluded because it was filed after a prolonged delay. The evidence on the record proved that the allottee was continuously cultivating the land and, having spent a large sum of money on it, had fitted a tube well for the allotment eligibility for the prop. Under the preliminary rights, the scheme was subject to the terms and conditions of the Revenue Courts and was not taken into account in the fact that allotment was not guilty in timely application for the grant of proprietary rights as it waited. Was filed under the scheme Scheme 1979 until its decision was made. It was not until alatty could apply under the scheme, land in dispute was still available and alatayty had fulfilled all its obligations to the terms and conditions of the copyright judgments. This decree was passed by the court below and Raven jobs for advocates from Mirpur Mathelo lawyer