Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE

Sections 19 and 36 suit for the declaration of the property rights claim in the suit that the plaintiffs were continuously occupying and cultivating said that the land suit was pronounced by the trial court but it was on appeal. The tenant of the court dismissed it. Already occupied the land for 30 years, paying regular installments as well as making progress, the department ordered the rehabilitation of the tenant even after passing the tenant's restoration order and paying the bulk of the land value. After approval. The question, in the circumstances, will be a very difficult problem for the tenant. And the plaintiffs were entitled to not be subject to such deprivation.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013

• MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR v. State 2013 PCrLJ 745
• FAUJI FOUNDATION v. Raja GHAZANFAR ALI 2013 CLC 746
• BASHIR AHMAD v. BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, MULTAN 2013 PLC(CS) 752
• UMAR DRAZ v. State 2013 PCrLJ 755
• ALLAH DITTA v. PROVINCE OF PUNJAB 2013 CLC 764
• DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY, LAHORE v. Miss BISMAH ALI 2013 MLD 764
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI-UR-REHMAN v. RUSTAM KHAN 2013 YLR 770
• KEEBA v. BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB 2013 YLR 775

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2013 →

how to become a advocate from Gawadar lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes