Find a Lawyer

MST. SALEEMA BIBI versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)/SETTLEMENT COMMISSION (LANDS)

Section os 41 The transfer of property by extraordinary owner under the Settlement Rules was that the property was not made a party to the proceedings, it was not heard and the applicant purchased the land from which it was allotted. The claim was never made. As the 4 30 64 was supposed to be unrealistic through the sale agreement until 1964, the aforesaid could not be relocated to its units in any other village so that the applicant could lose his or her valuable rights as the owner. Do, though it was possible, could be the case. Due to the cancellation of the allotment on the basis of fraudulent claim or fraudulent allotment on the receiving of the allotment in excess of any claim, the applicant could not lose the land purchased before the allotment after its confirmation. In favor of another person and he could not do so, in this case, the units could have been moved and even if the units were transferred, in another village, the ultimum would have deprived the applicant of his or her valuable rights in that village. Should have been canceled instead of doing the same purchase with valuable consideration without notice, despite the original allotment district's removal or units, the right of ownership had already been accumulated in favor of the shopkeeper, Can not be disturbed by the transfer device and since the order after the allotment by the settlement authorities Ali had no legal authority to the extent of the land, therefore, it would have no effect. Its right, title and interest in the ground on the principles of dispute list of advocates from Minchanabad lawyer