Articles 5, 6 and 9 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), suits Articles 42 and 54, together with the removal of unauthorized occupants of public property, led to the plaintiff's key debate with the trial and appellate court. It was a halal allottee of a flat that was rented out, whose rent was regularly deducted from his salary. And that the defendant / federal government had no recourse to the flat because the plaintiffs / joint state officers of the Federal Government had never surrendered to acquire possession of the flat lying under the provisions of the Central Government Land and Buildings. Were trying. Occupation Ordinance, 1965 It was alleged that no allotment order existed in favor of the claimant in respect of the allotment of the flat and he was not entitled to the allotment of the same claimant for unauthorized occupation, while his right I was unable to place an allotment order. It was proved that the flat was kept in the federal government's pool which had the claimant's qualification in respect of the allotment of the flat in his name, having been rejected in the Supreme Court in a previous litigation case. Who showed his disrespect. When he was concealed by the plaintiff, he said that the material facts from the courts had only succeeded in obtaining favorable orders and that there was too much time to maintain the flat with the help of litigation, which was not only questionable. Unfortunately, due to the plaintiff's conduct, he did not deserve any relaxation because he abused the law and was in possession of a flat. Illegal plaintiff for more than ten years
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010
