Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ZAFAR versus YOUSAF ALI

Sections 8, 42 and 54 of the Public Land Colonization (Punjab) Act (v. 1912), sections 10, 32, 34, and 36 for declaration of suit property and injunctive suit since 1947 have been in the possession of the plaintiff's controversial premises. Defendant, Source 16. Due to a false report of the Revenue staff, the 1974 approval of the Collector obtained proprietary rights in respect of Ahata in respect of Ahata and after the failure of the demand for revenue, Section 32 of the Claimant's Government Offices (Punjab) Colonization Act, 1912. Action started under / 34. , Filed for declaration / injunction, which the defendant also filed for acquittal `The trial court upheld both the cases, but filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the claim for dismissal. The Court of Appeal accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiff and set aside the trial order. The court observed that there was no mention of a disputed contract in the defendant's interest in the defendant's foreclosure interest. The T on the record cannot be considered to be the owner of the controversial Aha Collector, before the order passed on 16 16 1974, the plaintiff was not discharged on the occasion of hearing that the powers under section 32 / Exclude it in use Section 34 of the Act of the Act does not exclude the right to a hearing of the affected person, nor can any determination be made in the possession of any person under it. The collector's order relating to the grant of proprietary rights to was canceled. Section 36 of the Appeal and Revision Act filed by the plaintiff without litigation jurisdiction of the civil court top advocate from Kakur Town lawyer