LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, SARGODHA versus MUHAMMAD SULTAN
Sections 4, 11, 18, 23 and 54 were referred to the Court of Appeal for the determination of compensation from the acquisition of land and the award was announced by the collector, which assessed the compensation for the constructed property. / Landlords were not satisfied with the deployment compensation. Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Reference Court participated in the proceedings for some time and in their presence cases were also set up, after which the proprietors presented their evidence, after which the authority to produce the evidence. Many opportunities were provided for, but they failed and ultimately failed. According to the relevant date, they were not prosecuted against the former party, nor were any officials present or produced any evidence before the court. Records of the reference found in favor of Section 454 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while deciding the reference. Services had filed the appeal against the court decision reference. The Authority has failed to produce evidence for the purpose provided it had numerous opportunities, its conduct did not deserve any further abuse, especially when it was heard by anyone on the last date of the hearing. When the landlord did not appear in court and presented evidence, he was examined by the authority. However, their evidence regarding the nature and value of their property was inconsistent but no evidence was presented by the authority against the landlord's position being unfair, but the court accepted the landlord's statements and There is no option but to believe in it. Something about the value of a property acquired under oath
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
