Find a Lawyer

FAZAL MUHAMMAD versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR/A.C., SWABI

Section 18 and 30 of the Land Compensation, the landlord's argument for determining a higher value claim by the landlord was proof that the collector did not hold that the compensation was justified by the lower and lower courts because there was a probable value of the land. This was not taken into account and the land, located a short distance from the village, was suitable for construction purpose and could have cost more, the accuracy of which was examined by Patwari Lakha, who had prepared the relevant record, which included annual changes of some mutations. Average photostat copies were also included. The witness was also presented by the witness who confessed that the suit was a landowner and was not irrigated by a canal or tube well. Another witness stated that he had sold the land in In Wand in as Landlords claimed that no other document could be produced to prove Mu's version of the evidence or the aforementioned testimony, nor could any of the testimonies produced by the landlord examined by any party in this transaction. For reasons that could not be deduced that most of these were photostat copies and, because of the secondary evidence, they I was taken to the trial court for the preparation of secondary evidence because the evidence can not be accepted. And that no party was presented in this transaction because it could only produce the mutation because it was not enough to believe that the value listed was entered correctly and that is a good thing. Because the landowners were burdened with creating a single party to deal with the matter. Depending on which advocate from Jampur lawyer