Find a Lawyer

MUEEN-UD-DIN versus ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL OF AUQAF, PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD

Section 11 Punjab Dedicated Property Ordinance (IV of 1979), Section 2 (e) Homeless Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XXVII of 1958), Section 29 Dedicated Property Department, Special Jambandi Authority Department, Administration, Control, Management And assumed the maintenance of the property, and the appellant's court under section 11 of the Federal Control Act 1976, upholding the notification, said that the property and the shrine were not dedicated, the trial court said through appellant. The appeal raised was dismissed by the trial court that the evidence was wrong. Individuals in the form of entitlement according to which this was no dedicated property. Accuracy reflected the fact that the property was a monastery owned by the owners, thus the status of the property was private and not the disputed land was allotted in exchange for the property left in India. In exchange for the properties held in India under section 29 of the Landless Settlements Act, 1958, they were required to be given in a special jamabandi trial court to determine the status of the jamabandi of 1972 73. It was convinced, which document was read by the individual and could not be read in isolation. If both documents were read simultaneously, the status of the property emerged privately and not as a dedication. Thus the most important document was the determination of the facts from the wrong property to the property of the property, which led to , Was permanently acknowledged for any religious or religious purpose, no such document was available, such as the definition of section 2 (e) of the Punjab Dedicated Property Ordinance, 1979 advocate for immigration from Piaro goth lawyer