Find a Lawyer

DIRECTOR-GENERAL, RAWALPINDI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MIAN MUHAMMAD SADIQ

Article 4 (185 ()) of the unlawful government workers, the respondents' duty to buy the plot from the authorities in the open auction and submit their dues, the sale was confirmed in favor of the respondents, who on their site Following the approval of the plans, the construction was extended. Authorities resumed the plots of the respondents. In the year 1962, due to the failure to pay the structure fee and issuance of notice for rent collection from the year, 1962 was issued to the respondents that the respondent and the High Court in the constitutional jurisdiction The notice of demand was taken by the respondents. Absolute rights to property, interest and title, but only to the extent payment of composition fees was accepted by the authorities. Under no law, the authorities did not have the authority to resume the plot and claim the rent after a period of 38 years, when the defendants acquired absolute rights and title to the property and extended the construction after the approval of the site plan. There were some irregularities or deviations from the plan to approve the allegations against the operators, which would not justify the restoration of the plots as wrongful dismissal by the authorities allowed the High Court to stop the proceedings. , Which was essentially an illegal and unlawful Supreme Court. Taking note of the concern that the time has come that it is time to act in a fair and rational manner by respecting and respecting unnecessary litigation by public officials, considering Article 185 (3) of the Constitution. There was no question of public importance law under consideration registration advocate from Besham lawyer