Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN versus MUHAMMAD DIN

Section 3 (1) (2) (3) (4) (4) and pre-emptive right of photo-land on which the pre-emptor claimed pre-emptive rights in connection with the house even though it did not belong to the land. Revenue was estimated but there was no longer any agricultural land. It was indistinguishable (???? ???? ???) and was completely covered by houses if a piece of land would be unoccupied despite paying the land revenue, Otherwise it would have been intended for the purpose of replacing agriculture whenever a house or any other type of construction work was done on the land, so the owner's intention was that it should be used for all purposes other than agriculture and land. And the owner will voluntarily move out of the estate, including the land. Unless it is part of the cows or the civic real estate unless the income of the lane is estimated then it can be defined as both agricultural and non-agricultural property when a part of the property is used by the village for permanent and permanent use. Or the citizen falls into the unacceptable category. The property, although assessed by the revenue of the land, will not be part of any further property on which the pre-emptor has completely re-established and permanently changed its rights. In nature, a pre-emptor will have no right to be vacated in the same way Pakistan, top advocate family court from Chitral lawyer