Find a Lawyer

SAWAN versus TAGGIA

Sections 10, 11 and 13 relating to the relevant issues were held with the consent of the parties and the 8 Kanal and 7 Marla land was jointly allocated to both the Appellant and the Defendant with fifty shares which was made. It was said that the two had jointly installed an expensive turbine in the above land respondents almost four years after the confirmation, the same was challenged in the appeal but the collector consolidation rejected the appeal due to time constraints and On the basis that the relevant issue has already been transferred to the Revenue Side and that the scheme is approved by the parties. Was filed by the respondent against the decision for collector stability, the Additional Commissioner of Stability accepted, who withdrew 4 kanals and 10 marls of land from a combined scheme and allocated the land allotted to the respondent. ? Earlier, the order of the Additional Commissioner was withheld by the appellant in the appeal. The Board of Revenue's evidence in the record proved that the turbine on the ground was installed and jointly owned by the appellant and Defendants and defendants were unable to prove that they had paid for the applicant that he had spent on the installation of the turbine responders. The scheme was challenged after about 4 years because the land in the dispute was converted into commercial land due to the highway and the defendant tried to seize it because of its high cost. Illegally allocated the land to respond to the extreme damage. The consent of the parties to the appellant scheme female advocates from Lakki Marwat lawyer