MUHAMMAD ASLAM SHAMI versus ZULFIQAR BUTT
Complaint Against Section 3 Unlawful Settlement The petitioner, who claimed to be the owner of the property in dispute on the basis of a registered sale deed, alleged that the defendant was unlawful and forcibly seized, and Had filed an application under section 3 (2) of the unlawful injunction. Prior to the Act, 2005, the Additional Sessions Judge, in his petition, prayed that the respondents be dealt with in accordance with law and property possession; The relevant section HA stated that the respondents were in possession of the property for more than fifteen years in the dispute and the fact was also acknowledged by the applicant that the Additional Sessions Judge had rightly concluded that the applicant. Complaint is not safe because it was enacted under the Illegal Arrivals Act, 2005. The year 2005 and section 3 (1) of the Act created a new offense, the clause in which it was proposed in subsection (2) that a part of this law should be strictly interpreted and this law An illegal settlement under section 3 (1) of the Act may have occurred only after the execution of the Unlawful Settlement Act, 2005 was not successful for the applicant's lawyer to indicate that the counterfeit order was invalid, The arbitration by the High Court in review cannot be arbitrarily interfered with by the High Court in a legal and reasonable order.
when you need a advocate from Swat lawyer
