Find a Lawyer

BARKAT JAN versus GHULAM RASOOL

Section 8 (2) and 21 notification no. 8776 76 / IIO IR III, dated 20 1 1977, issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 100 Second appeal against Mangla Dam affected persons. Practicing the right of publication Allotted to such victims, the two courts simultaneously ruled in favor of the professional umpire that the opinion of the shopkeepers was that the suit was issued by Land Board, No. 1 8776 76 / IIO was incorporated in IR 1977 III. Revenue Punjab, under which the pre-emptive rights of suit land raised by the pre-emperors could not be exercised, provided that the shopkeepers were not displaced as stated in the case of the notification justification of a person who was Entire or sufficient holding was achieved. The purpose of construction of Mangla Dam is to fall into the category of homeless people due to construction of Mangla Dam. Due to the acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of the dam certificate, the source of livelihood was stripped. In this connection, the authorities issued exemptions to the persons displaced by the operation of the Punjab Pre-Empathy Act, 1913. In retaliation, the shopkeepers, in bulk or in the Mangla Dam project-affected area, will fall into the category of affected persons who were evicted or removed from their residence because they were deprived of their means. Was. The livelihoods were covered by a notification dated 20 20 197 1977, in which the necessary certificates were issued in favor of the shopkeepers, thereby exempting the use of pre-authorization by the pre-emptor judge. Declared pakistani advocates Laliah lawyer