NOOR-UL-HASSAN KHAN versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Article 199 Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 Intra Court Appeals Plot Allotment Appellant was allotted for extra money The plot was allotted by the authorities in question and 9 of his possession was granted. Year after year, authorities demanded money for additional land. Appellant's stay was legitimate. Additional questions included the cost of additional land, which became part of the plot in 1998 when an allotment was made in the name of the applicant. In the measurement of the plot, nothing was prevented by the authorities and it was charged more than if the incident could have been done by the authorities in 1998, The price received for the extraction area should not be higher than the price mentioned in the allotment letter, as authorized officials delay the process of measuring the surplus land itself. Appellant's plot demanded and it took twelve years to increase the demand; he too, after sculpting, issued a decree of office on 5 5 5 2001, to the authorities in the policy of estimating the prices of future affairs. No legal authority has been identified to raise the demand against the appellant for recovering more than 40% of the present rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner in the location of the property. , Was unfair and violated the principles of equality and justice and intended to impose an unlawful enrichment doctrine in favor of the authorities, a division bench of the High Court directed the authorities rejecting the decision passed by the single judge. That additional area be charged at the cost to the appellant. Allot the appellant under the question in proportion to which he was in question in 1998
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
