Find a Lawyer

MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN versus FATEH KHAN

Section 6 (1), Explanation II and III Pre-Occupancy Right to Affiliate Shaft and Shaft Jar A path connecting the former vacancy that is widely used by the public has no right of approval for the appellant / pre-importer. Ownership of this section of this section that was connected with the suit property was not in the exclusive use of such appellant as it was used by the public at such a time as the ownership of such passage was premature. Didn't get the right to The appellant could not be called a shaft blanket on the basis that he was a proprietor because he was not the exclusive proprietor of the same, as in this case the suit did not have any special rights with the property that it was a public Matter. The appellant did not have any pre-discrimination rights, accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2015

• SIKANDAR SHAH v. RAZA SHAH 2015 SCMR 10
• Mst. SHAHISTA BIBI v. SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL, MACH 2015 PLD 15
• A.M. ASSOCIATES v. GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA 2015 PLD 21
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL v. MEHBOOB ALAM 2015 SCMR 21
• LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, G.S.C., N.T.D.C., (WAPDA), LAHORE v. Mst. SURRAYA MEHMOOD JAN 2015 SCMR 28
• MUHAMMAD AMIN LASANIA v. ILYAS MARINE AND ASSOCIATES 2015 PLD 33
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM v. State 2015 PLD 41
• LIBERTY PAPERS LTD v. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN 2015 PLD 42

All Supreme Court judgments of 2015 →

law firms from Chishtian lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes