FAZIL KHAN versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SIALKOT
Sections 2 (d), 3 and 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitution Petitioner had alleged in his complaint that the respondents had illegally crossed the glass route from 1927 through a section. Applicants are in use by the. In the statements of the Deputy Tehsildar and the residents of the village, it appears that the applicant did not occupy this route as his owner, but at one time reached the Chabad / Vale Revenue as the route of the applicant. Was used for There was no evidence on record that it was recorded that the applicant was legally occupied and deposed on that route, which was recorded as Shmalt Deh. Was claiming the right of way in which he was not an owner, nor was he in possession of it. At the time when the respondents seized it, a case under the Unlawful Disposition Act, 2005, which did not demand the intervention of the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, was dismissed.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
top civil advocates from FR Tank / DI Khan lawyer
