Find a Lawyer

NISAR MUHAMMAD KHAN versus SAEEDULLAH KHAN

Revenue officer Seema Scope Plaintiff purchased the suit property to correct entries in the Section 42 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 6 Suite Revenue Record but the names of his brothers and nephews were entered into the sale mutation. The decree under which the mutation was affirmed by the plaintiff was the owner of the suit for the last 40 years. Was. Long-term entries in the tax records, including the determination of the rights of the mechanically-modified entries, can only be challenged by a civil suit and cannot be altered by the Revenue Officer due to a miscellaneous request. Tax revenue was not sustained due to scope malfunction Minor invalid entries or even challenged within three years of receiving a majority This decree enters into the application for correction of 17 years of majority acquisition This was followed by a time restriction under which both courts failed to follow the law properly, which resulted in abortion of justice and decisions were passed. The two courts were set aside and the plaintiff's case was ordered to review the circumstances.

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014

• Haji MUHAMMAD ADEEL v. CANTONMENT BOARD, PESHAWAR through the Cantonment Executive Officer, Peshawar Cantt. 2014 MLD 1186
• Mst. SHAH ROOM v. Mst. KHAISTA BIBI 2014 YLR 1193
• SAID RASOOL v. Dr. HAMAYUN KHAN 2014 MLD 1199
• Mst. PARVEEN v. BAKHSHEESH 2014 PCrLJ 1207
• UNITED RUBBER (PVT.) LIMITED v. BANK OF KHYBER, (BOK) 2014 CLD 1220
• UMAR DARAZ v. State 2014 YLR 1231
• Mian MUSTAFA GUL v. PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PESHAWAR 2014 PLC(CS) 1234
• SANAM ZEB v. SHAH NAWAZ 2014 PCrLJ 1246

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2014 →

list of supreme court advocates from Hyderabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes