Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD TAHIR BAIG versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB, LAHORE

Sections 9, 10 and 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional Appeal Stability Scheme The applicant claimed that he had exclusively owned the whole measles before consolidation, but was told that the measles number two was given to the defendant. He went on to pray that his Wanda Revenue Record keeping two canal areas shows that the measles number in the 8 kanal question was in equal shares with the applicant and his brother and the applicant was given 3 kanals. And 8 Marla was allotted, which would mean that according to the question in Khusra, they said that 4 kanals in khasra number that evening in Kansala. Yes, he was allotted 3 kanals and 8 marla, and out of that 2 kanals were given to the defendants, the applicant could not claim 2 kanals. The land, when it was allotted 3 Kanal and 8 Marla earlier, left only its original possession of 12 Marla, neither the Collector nor the Additional Commissioner E-Record and both of them had passed their respective orders in this regard. That the applicant was the original owner, he said that the 2 kanals of the land scheme had been verified with the consent of the applicant and his co-partner / his brother member (Stability) was rightly set aside by the board. Illegal orders of the Collector and Commissioner and the unauthorized order passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercising constitutional jurisdiction. registration advocate from Kotla Pathan lawyer