Find a Lawyer

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR versus GHULAM AHMAD

Sections 18 and 54 Appellate Lotus Standing Agency agreed to increase the compensation to the landlord The licensing agency was the beneficiary of the acquired land and had no rights or lotus standby The court may challenge the compensation paid by the local authority or company to landlords. The land had no right to appeal against the judgment arising out of section 18 of the Acquiring Act, 1894, the acquisition authority was made a party to the litigation and the authority to consider the evidence supported by the parties. Later, the trial court filed a reference by adding evidence. , The properly increased rate of land obtained by the Authority was not found in any irregularities, misreading or reading of evidence or judicial decisions in the trial and the defect in the judicial order, That was the basis for the right and proper reason. Dismissed in circumstances

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010

• SAGHEER MUHAMMAD KHAN v. MEMBER (JUDICIAL-V) BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB 2010 YLR 1352
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL alias Mithu v. State 2010 PCrLJ 1355
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ v. FEDERAL LAND COMMISSIONER, ISLAMABAD 2010 MLD 1366
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND WEALTH TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE v. BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, RAWALPINDI 2010 PTD 1366
• Mian ARIF HUSSAIN alias MIAN JAVED v. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, DASKA 2010 YLR 1369
• SHABBIR AHMAD v. State 2010 PCrLJ 1371
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD v. FAROOQ AHMAD 2010 YLR 1374
• RUSTAM v. State 2010 MLD 1376

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2010 →

immigration advocates contact from Gohar Ghoushti lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes