Sections 10, 32 and 34 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 4 and 199 Constitutional Appeal from the year 1947 have been submitted to the applicant in the possession of the applicant and its construction since 1995 that demolished the construction An earlier constitutional petition against the threat of The High Court is directed by the Collector to decide the applicant's claim as per the law and rules that the Collector ordering the land from the applicant without payment of compensation has been made by the Collector. Order didn't comply. The High Court had passed the unauthorized order without issuing notice and without giving the applicant the opportunity to be heard, even if it was abusive, abusive or offensive, enjoying equal protection of the law. Had the right to be possessed and to act according to the law. No clear violation of Article 4 of the Constitution can be allowed. At the hearing of the petitioner, it cannot be said of the Collector that he is satisfied under Section 32 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, in the present case. Settlement may not be the only option, but may be an alternative land, sale or minimum grant allocation. The time to vacate the land could be a possible option if the collector was fully satisfied after hearing that there was no alternative but to ask for section 34 of the Government Land Colonization (Punjab) Act 1912, then it would have They are allowed to proceed in compliance. Under Article 4 of the High Court of the Constitution, the procedure prescribed under the Act was approved without acting without law while the Collector
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
