Find a Lawyer

SHAFI MUHAMMAD versus STATE

In the QQ Legislative Martyrdom (1984, of 10 of 1984), the respondents claimed both plots in the dispute through a registered sale deed, which was approximately 30 years old and unless denied, could be prosecuted. The 1984 order was in favor of the Revenue Authorities Respondent, while the Board of Revenue directed the status of the aforesaid plots to be held, the defendants had, under Section 3 of the Illegal Settlement Act 2005 The session was referred to the court and the matter was decided. On the other hand, on the other hand, in respect of the plots mentioned above, the applicant states that he was based on a sale agreement dated 211 2000 which was neither a registered document nor a method of payment. Defendant's argument confirms that the plot was decided by the applicant to be the owner of either party, a decision that the court can take on the confiscated case under illegal disposals. The Articles Act, 2005 was apparently a registered document in favor of the respondents in 1977 and under Article 111 of the Law Evidence, 1984, the court had to take its judicial notice and weigh it until That the applicant's claim should not be approved. Respect for the same plot but a number of suspicions also arose that in their support only through the documentary documents, the so-called illegal extermination act 2005 facilitated the general public and infamous individuals and lands. An order was issued to work against the occupiers. Land on the lot of those who occupied the land, with the intention of the legislature family advocate from Haripur lawyer