PAKISTAN RAILWAYS THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER versus MST. KISHWAR BIBI
Sections 42 and 53 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O XXXIX, RR 1 and 2 Punjab Kachi Population Act (VII of 1992), Section 6 (2) Land and Buildings (Recovery) Ordinance of Central Government (LIV of 1965) In order to declare the title, along with the permanent injunction, the plaintiff, the Section 3 suit, in its claim, held that the land in the dispute (owned by the railway) was allotted by the Directorate General of Kachi Settlements under the Punjab Kachi Settlement Act 1992 Was. It was owned and the development authority or the provincial government did not have the power to assign the plaintiff's suit and the appeal was upheld in the order that the legality of the section 6 of the Punjab Kachi Settlement Act 1992, the Director General, The Kachi population was given the authority of any declaration that its territory or part of it should be Katchi population except that it belonged to the Federal Government Railway, which was undoubtedly a federal authority, so the Director General Kachi Abadis were not authorized. Was to call this question underground. The chi population, nor could they allot the same searches of the courts under which the plaintiff was legally allotted by the Director General, was without valid grounds, however, even though the contentious land was owned by the railway but the plaintiff. Cannot be withdrawn without issue and notice of notice. The Central Government's Land and Recovery Ordinance, 1965 Procedure Since no such notice was issued, the railway was barred from evading the plaintiff without law enforcement.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
