Section 8 and 54 demarcation act (IX of 1908), Article 142 West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), section 39 suit occupied and compulsory for demolition of construction on suit land by the plaintiff The decree was that during his stay abroad, the defendant seized the land without any rights or title and raised the building. And that Khasra Gidawari said in the petition of the plaintiff holding the suit for the defendant for the year 1992 that the matter was stopped on time. And after the seller confirmed the change in his sale in favor of him, he had seized the land, the case was dismissed by the trial and the appellate court. The change of sale in favor of the claimant was neither the owner of the suit land according to the ownership column nor was he entitled to the cultivation column, therefore, he could not transfer the title better than that which Shijra Kishtwar did not have. Was shown that the land purchased by the claimant and suit. The land was far apart from each other because of the two roads the plaintiff filed in 2001 after the new settlement in 1992 and after the preparation of new settlement for the years 1999 and 1999, 1997 96 and 1999 2000 each. The latest freeze will create a new cause for action. The proceedings were received for the plaintiff in the year 1999, therefore, on the basis of sanctions, the limitation was within the time required in accordance with the tenant's Article 142 of the Act, 1908. As a tenant, the landlord cannot claim any title in the title of the land because it was not entitled to compensation for the construction of the land without valid legal authority and the plaintiff was not entitled to a suit.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
