Find a Lawyer

MST. NASREEN TARIQ versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY HOUSING AND PHYSICAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Sections 5A, 17 and 54 of the Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), the Section 3 intra-court appeal required to retain the legal opposition, were constrained by the acquisition of a piece of land occupied by its High Court in exercising constitutional jurisdiction. Acquisition proceeding is permissible The acquisition was for the public purpose of widening the road due to traffic congestion in the area The immediate nature of the road widening and reconstruction work under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The appellant was not being subjected to discrimination with other formalities, as the adjoining property owners had already received compensation for their acquired land lease by appellant authorities. And failed to make the election under which the Court of Appeal filed under Section 3 of the Law Reform Was. Under the Ordinance, 1972, which precluded the availability of such a right in the case of O, any appeal / revision or revision was affirmed by the Appellant Acquisition Act of 1894 regarding the stringent action challenged in the constitutional petition. Was granted under section 454 of the Act, under which the Land Acquisition Collector was awarded, therefore, the High Court's decision was not open to challenge. In the circumstances before the Division Bench of the High Court Intra Court, the appeal was dismissed law firms from Khuiratta lawyer