Find a Lawyer

SYED LAL HUSSAIN SHAH versus LAL MUHAMMAD

R2 (c) Appeal for the approval of the amalgamated open land, which was reserved for the common purpose of the village, was passed in favor of the defendants by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), sections 42 and 42B. The approval was upheld by the High Court, but the Supreme Court vacated the High Court order and after the remand order to the High Court for a new decision on all the points raised in the writ petition filed before the High Court, After the remand order, once again the lawful property land to be disputed for the defendants without the Supreme Court order Was purely named in the name of the enclosure in the Revenue Record, and such land, which was allotted to the common purpose of the village, could not be regulated in any one's favor. As long as the entries in the Revenue Record, which were only authorized under the law, are not validated in accordance with the law, the officer cannot be trusted. In this regard, the e-entries will remain on the revenue record, they were to be read with the same spirit otherwise the scatter reporting of the Revenue Officers would create confusion, which, however, could be justified, when the Supreme Court. The final decision was made. Earlier, under these circumstances, the law of the land had been made and any authority, be it the High Court, could disregard the law framed by the Supreme Court, despite the decision that land allotment in dispute for the facts. / Maintain approval. The Supreme Court was brought to its notice and the supremacy of the courts and the supremacy of the constitution demanded that Azad Jammu and Kashmir ab advocate for immigration from Shangla lawyer