Find a Lawyer

AHMED KHAN versus MST. SAKINA BIBI

Section 21Aland Reform Regulations, 1972 (MLR 115), paragraph 25 (3) before the tenancy as a right of self-sufficiency, suit land improvement was sold in 189 1970, and the pre-emptor filed on 149 1971. What was, being a partner. The trial court dismissed the case on the ground that the seller had improved his position under paragraph 25 (3) of the Land Reforms Regulation (MLR 115), because he was a tenant in the suit. The appeal was granted and the verdict was upheld and the order was upheld by the High Court of Appellate Court, and in the second appeal the vendor submitted that paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation (MLR 115) 3), he had premature rights as he was a tenant with the landlord in this case. There was no pre-literacy tenant available under para 25 (3) of the Land Reform Regulation (MLR 115) who had obtained the suit before the Land Reform Regulation (MLR 115) came into force. Was purchased and did not raise a good status question. The position of the shopkeeper would have been different if he had purchased the suit land with his tenant status on or before the date of the sofa in 1971, then the High Court correctly held that the shopkeeper was merely an umpire. Cannot defeat the right of the mere basis on the basis that he was a tenant at the time of the sale of the suit land in the year 1970, because no tenant had any pre-ownership rights available at that time, the court said Refused to take any concession on the court-approved decision. tax advocates from Minchanabad lawyer