Find a Lawyer

MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE/CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LAHORE versus KHUDA BAKHSH

In the Arts ? (185 ()) and Qan QQ Kevin Martyr (10 of 1984), the constitutional application of Article 114 High Court was allotted to respondents of the Department of Justice's decision regarding the administration of justice but This allotment was canceled after 15/20 years. The Settlement Officers were appealed to the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction over the settlement of the Settlement Authorities Act where the Advocate General issued a contract in relation to the settlement of the respondents by the Administration, the notification officer allocated alternative land. Five years after the allotment of alternative land to the respondents, the Board of Revenue complied with the notification officer's order and filed constitutional petitions under which constitutional jurisdiction allocated alternate lands to the respondents. The order of the ultimatum was not stated in the mouth of the Board of Revenue / Chief Settlement Commissioner, the notified officer, who passed the order after the matter was handed over to the Board of Revenue / Chief. The Commissioner himself acted illegally in pursuance of his commitment as a representative to the High Court, and ordered without any jurisdiction by the notified officer to act as estoppel against the Board of Revenue. In addition, it was the order which did justice to the respondents. Always refusing to interfere with any action that paved the way for justice and denied any wrongdoing with a helpless and affected party, the authorities should go to the High Court Board of Revenue for at least 5 Failed to provide an explanation for the unusual delay of the year. Chief Settlement Comm pakistani advocates Yazman Mandi lawyer