Find a Lawyer

MST. BARKAT JAN versus CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY, AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD

Sections 18 and 43 (6) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), the granting of property rights to retain the 44th constitutional petition, the grant of powers of the native property holders to the allotment land for allotment custody upon request. No, canceled. The allotments that were given in favor of the applicants were not the same as for the plates allocated by the applicants, which was that the order passed by the defendants was banned which would have been given to the custodian. In his favor, the transfer order had wide powers to consider the assertion of proprietary rights, regardless of the extent to which the guardian believed that the transfer of the proprietary rights was done by him in its entirety. An illegal order has been issued on. He was able to recall even Moto himself under section Ev Pakistan ()) (Administration of Native Property) Act, 1957, but regardless of any limitation, he was entitled to the petitioner's ownership. The right to rights was reviewed because the High Court was not available to the petitioners for extraordinary jurisdiction under section 44 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim 1974, which can only be used if the aggrieved person Applicants may challenge the authenticity of a transfer of ownership rights if no alternative is available. In the favor of the respondents through a review application under Section 18 (b) of the Pakistan (Administration for Vacant Property) Act, 1957, the validity and legality of the ownership rights in the case of the High Court court is not challenged by the review petition. H when you need a advocate from Dinga lawyer