MUHAMMAD YOUNUS versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY N.AS. GILGIT
Sections 4 and 6 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), A XV, R 3 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 42 Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Government) Order, 2009, Article 60 (13) of the Land Decision The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, without the evidence of the transfer, in his favor, under the provisions of the OXV, R3CPC decision, and the order passed by the trial court was passed by the lower appellate court. But the Chief Court adjourned the trial for the trial court's decision. After recording the evidence, the plaintiff's complaint again was that the authorities acquired their land but did not pay compensation, while the authorities claim that they were willing to give land in return for the land acquired. A particular law authority may acquire any land for the purpose of acquiring land for the public or public purpose welfare, if it is required for public purposes by paying compensation accordingly. Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but they could not be allowed that any new method of providing alternative land was the right of a party without the consent of the landowner, but the court was compelled or dragged to form a party. Can't The strategy behind the delivery of evidence O XV, R 3, to settle cases on the power of documentary evidence as quickly as possible and to save valuable court time and to save illegal litigation, whatever the case was. Was legal. Questions about the root and facts of the case were not included. The trial court's finding of the unlawful use of trial court powers was not based on authentic reasoning, but rather on false reasoning and law.
Related judgments — Supreme Appelate Court Gilgit, 2010
