Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) PUNJAB, LAHORE

Section 30 (3) (a) and 66 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional application for removal of sheep and poultry production scheme colony land in the year 1955 but the defendant did not occupy the land with the impression that the petitioner. Assuming possession of his application will be accepted, the unauthorized occupation of the applicant was acknowledged by the Board of Revenue, energy (penalty) was imposed on it and the board also decided that the sale by private contract. Give the proprietary rights against the existing market value plus 10% surcharge payment on the account, after which the respondent's second request On this basis, the Board Revenue passed an order. The applicant's land was to expel the applicant from the plai that he could expel under the provisions of Section 6ti of the Thali Deolim. Ent Authority 1949 The Vitality Authority was accepting the lease amount on an annual basis from the date of the applicant's dispute because of the dispute, while the applicant made no mistake in depositing the same amount and there was no charge or cost against it. Notwithstanding, any statement of the terms issued under section 30 (3) (a) of the Thai Development Authority Act 1949 in the order of withdrawal of the Board of Revenue approval was not identified, the cost of submitting the sale. This land later fell outside the jurisdiction of the Revenue / Colony Authority. And the applicant had become a full owner so he was not responsible for the restoration of the land he occupied. It would not be fair after almost five decades had elapsed and in the interest of justice to expel the applicant and his Depriving the society of the basic, the responsibility of the Islamic State power of attorney advocate Farooqabad lawyer