Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AYUB versus MUHAMMAD FAZIL

Section 3, 7 and 41 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), the allotment of land for withdrawal of 42, was about the ground role in the disputed jurisdictional dispute over the Supreme Court involved in the matter. Whether it was vacant or evacuated custodian, based on the available evidence on record, it was found that the land in dispute was a vacant property and that it had previously restored the allotment of land made by appellant in favor of the appellant. About which the respondents reviewed the application filed against the orders. After being eventually dismissed, the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court against the orders of the Custodian which was accepted and the orders passed by the Custodian in favor of the Opposition were adjudicated by the Additional Advocacy of Evidence Property Act 1957. Was canceled in which a special jurisdiction was declared. Whether there was any property, eviction or non-eviction custodian, the high results of the evidence on the search record cannot be included in the jurisdiction of the writ by the High Court, even otherwise disputed questions by the High Court. The writ jurisdiction cannot be resolved; in the circumstances, the facts were not justified in finding the reverse. Custodian, who was the sole authorized authority in the case, allowed the Supreme Court to appeal the High Court's decision, remanding the case to Custodian to meet the requirements of law and justice, and between the parties in relation to the nature of the suit land. Participate in an upcoming dispute law firms from Manoabad lawyer