SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT versus CHANDIAZAI MENGAL TRIBE THROUGH MALIK GHULAM QADIR
Sections 55 & 55 55 Case Declaration and Mandatory Decree Trial Court and the appellate court dismissed the filing of the complaint filed by the accused plaintiff without prior notice and without legal authority to raise the dirt raised by the defendants. I was disappointed. The plaintiff claimed his right on the basis of the award given by the sole arbitrator in 1921, while the verdict was given in 1922 when the plaintiff prayed for the declaration of his title and right and issued a decree. That the public defendants have been instructed to restore the ore bore drainage / bund to its former location. The format / status of their expenditures has failed both to fully appreciate the facts acknowledged by the court, but relied solely on the award / decision given in 1921 and 1922, the plaintiff had to establish that he too had a controversial dam. It has a legal right to extend the construction, even the theory of the fact that after the construction of the proper water scheme in 1962, the right to increase the construction of the dam, even temporary by the claimant, was awarded in 1921. On the basis that no such evidence was brought to the record by the plaintiff and instead it was merely a matter of hiding the facts. While the two courts did not realize the actual dispute in announcing the case and gave conclusions which were not with the help of the evidence and the records on the record, the plaintiff did not exercise his right to extend the dam in question on the sack drain. Was completely unsuccessful in establishing, while the authorities concerned have the right to demolish any unauthorized construction that affects the flow of ground irrigation water. Thousands in the area
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010
