CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE, ADVOCATE versus CANTONMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHUNIAN, DISTRICT KASUR
Sections 7, 39 (4) and 3 of the Works and Defense Rules, R556 Army Regulations, Volume II (1991), Directive Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 23, 8 and 199 question the ban on privately owned land. I had enough gates on the side of the road, the authorities blocked it with barbed wire, and only a small entrance was left. Authorities stated that in relation to section 39 (4) of the Act and in accordance with Article \ 55 and the Army Regulations, Volume II (Directive), 1991, such restriction was given to Section 7, Works of A ban on the legitimate limits of the Defense Act, 1903, which recognizes that it was his. And after the publication of the notice referred to in section 3 (2) of the Act, the restrictions referred to in the said section (which did not justify fixing the wire), as the Federal Government declared in its sole discretion. Can do. And under the section 3 of the Works of Defense Act 1903, no declaration / notification was made about the land of the landowners, the land in question was not shown to be in a class zone effect when no restrictions were imposed. Was made, under any provision of the Works of Defense Act, 1903, R 556, which was subordinate to it, could be construed to mean the prohibition of the authorities to wire / hedge against the landowners \ property. Was not under legal authority \ r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
