MUHAMMAD YOUNAS versus MEMBER BOARD OR EVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE
Article 30 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitution of the Land Recovery Process The allotment of the territory covered was canceled because it falls into the Prohibition Zone and the alternative land was allotted to the interests of the defendants and the Revenue authorities The alternate allotment and the Board of Revenue in the use of the amendment were canceled. The jurisdiction is subject to the submission of a fine of Rs. 10,000 but the respondent did not pay the penalty, therefore, the revenue authorities confirmed the auction of the land in favor of the applicant who has auctioned 1 of the bid amount. 4/4 was submitted but the appellate authority petitioner claimed that the appeal and the lease had been resumed in favor of the respondents. The respondents stated that the respondents were not cultivating the land, therefore, it was auctioned by the Revenue Authorities because the respondent failed to comply with the conditions imposed by the Board of Revenue Validity. The legal legacy of the original lease did not collect ammo Within a reasonable time, the district collector could file a case with the Board of Revenue seeking permission to restore the land after the recall of the lease restoration order in favor of the defendant. But instead of doing so, he proceeded to question the land before any higher forum, but no one challenged the auction order approved by the district collector, however, such an order was passed by the Board of Revenue. Approved without prior approval, the district collector cannot be given legal clearance to put underground land at auction. By appellate authority if the respondent questions the land in question
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
