Find a Lawyer

SARDAR KHAN versus GHULAM HUSSAIN

Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), [as adopted by the AJ&K], the Section 172 suit sought for the plaintiff to declare that the land consisting of various survey numbers was owned by him and the pro forma defendant. To be owned by Ali. And the lack of land in the Revenue Record has been declared ineffective and ineffective in their rights as well as against the rights of the aforementioned pharma defendants. The plaintiff sought a further statement that the short-term revenue record was responsible for the correction and claimed that the demolition of certain minor land was demolished by the walls which he (defendant) erected on the same plant. It is not mentioned that the defendant (s), who participated in the survey number belonging to the plaintiff and the pro forma defendant, had built and consolidated the walls. Surveys are contradictory about the old and new survey numbers related to the land they are in, the land and the encroachments, etc. were neither explained nor did the case be corrected by affecting the correction application. ? Influence, in the circumstances, the plaintiff was obliged to disclose when the survey number was exceeded by the defendants. The above proposals were affected by them and the plaintiff should have adopted the report obtained from the Revenue staff concerned by showing the encroachments on the land belonging to the plaintiff and the pro forma defendant, even outlining the relevant part of the land. Was confiscated by the defendant without charge, in addition to the correction of any registration recorded in the rights record with the claimant. immigration advocates email from Jhand lawyer