Find a Lawyer

HAMID FAROOQ versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.

Sections 42, & 54 and plain 55 claim, permanent, mandatory injunction and loss of money to the plaintiff's grip on the collection of money damaged that the multi-story building structure caused the defendants to dig up land to build a basement. Has harmed defendants' property. Was the site project approved by the development authority a collective one and the construction was not being done accordingly? The development authority had planned that the four basements had already been completed and that the construction level was going above the surface, with the plaintiffs fearing some kind of damage. Their property was destroyed due to underground paving. In an unspecified order, the trial court observed that the construction on the site was being carried out in accordance with the site plan approved by the development authority and that no rule was violated by the authorities. Stopping construction work, trial court will not be justified as it was found that construction on site is not in violation of building rules or it cannot be said of sanctioned plan to stop construction at site development authority The initial issue for the issuance of a restraining order is a matter that was to be identified. The multi-storied building already extends above the ground level, and was not present, because of concerns of damage to plaintiffs 'property due to excavation of the ground to construct the basement, because the plaintiffs' property was already Regarding the alleged damages, the claim for recovery of their claim is pending as damages and after the parties have acknowledged and heard the evidence. when you need a advocate from Tank lawyer