Article 3 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) The complainant of the illegal settlement was found by the High Court to be the legitimate owner of the plot, in the absence of the complainant in possession of which the accused had no legal authority. Understand. In cases of constructive occupation of the city, such occupation would be equivalent to os elimination, thus, properly and substantively falling under Section 3 of the Unlawful Settlement Act, 2005, the High Court was told that Was also not affected by misrepresentation or lack of evidence and therefore could not be interfered with by the Supreme Court, the trial plot was transferred to the complainant in 2004, but by March, 2006 He was in constructive possession when the accused rebelled. He took over and began to build it, and after the execution of the Illegal Disposition Act, he was charged with a confession. , The stand of 2005 that the Unlawful Dispossession Act, 2005, meant for those seizing the land, was not helpful to the accused, as he failed to prove his legal property against the Unlawful Dispossession Act, 2005 And it discouraged those who occupied the land. In order to protect property owners and property rights against illegal and unlawful occupants, the High Court observed that an unlawful defendant has the right to an unlawful settlement. Follow the provisions of the Act, 2005. Under other laws, without prejudice to such other remedies available simultaneously, they were denied and were capable of being prosecuted as a result,
