MOHY-UD-DIN THROUGH L.RS. versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR, NOW DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), JHANG
Sections 9 and 42 Temporary Farming Scheme (1978) Provision of allotment of land under Temporary Farming Scheme Provision of property rights on land holdings Notification The applicant for grant of proprietary rights was rejected and his rights. The allotment was canceled. The Revenue Plaintiffs filed a declaration and seizure lawsuit that was ordered but the order was set aside in the first appeal. The question was whether the appellate court had acted unlawfully in exercising its jurisdiction, whether the legally valid land was included in the auction schedule with proper approval? The competent authority and the province / defendants did not present any evidence which showed that the said schedule was illegal in the appellate court, therefore, proceeded on the false premise that the auction in favor of the defendants was made without advertisement. And the auction schedule wasn't approved by the authorized. During the litigation before the records, the plaintiff's alphabet, the Revenue Forum and the lower courts on the authority record, the defendants revealed that Chuck was a resident. In the absence of any evidentiary evidence presented by the province, the plaintiffs could not be disqualified by the Court of Appeal because the Assistant Commissioner found in their report that the plaintiff was not a resident of the Chuck of application. The result of being illegal. The jurisdiction was not lasting, therefore, it was set aside and the order passed by the trial court was affirmed by the High Court. \ r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
