Find a Lawyer

MALIK ZULFIQAR versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION ISLAMABAD

Article 4 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional Appeal to Disposal of Land Received Controversy Applicant claimed ownership of two canals and one marla from rectangle No. 54, which was entered into tax revenue because 54 / 26 The nature of the dispute in question was without measles No. 54 was different from measles No. 54/2626 Reading in the same rectangular record reveals that measles number 54 was obtained in 1972, fully given in the notification. Such a contentious question can be solved only by measurement and inquiry, only by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It also provided a mechanism for resolving disputes arising out of the process, stating that the total was obtained and no record of compensation payments could be shown that did not yield the controversial measles number. The petitioner's complaint cannot be redone in such a way that the petitioner's complaint has been dismissed using the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009

• MUHAMMAD HABIB v. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/JUSTICE OF PEACE JAMPUR, DISTRICT RAJANPUR 2009 PLD 235
• Malik MUZAHIR HUSSAIN v. TESNEEM AHSAN 2009 MLD 239
• Ch. MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE, ADVOCATE v. CANTONMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHUNIAN, DISTRICT KASUR 2009 PLD 240
• AUTOCRAFT through Proprietor v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS 2009 PTD 244
• PUNJAB ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ORGANIZATION (REGISTERED) through Vice-President v. PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Irrigation and Power, Lahore 2009 PLD 245
• ZIBTEC (PVT.) LTD through Director v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTOR 2009 PTD 246
• MANZAR LATIF MIAN v. Ms. MASARRAT MISBAH 2009 CLD 247
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL v. State 2009 PCrLJ 251

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2009 →

pakistani advocates Kohat lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes