Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ISHFAQUE versus CH. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ

Section 42 and 54 Homeless persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sections 3,22.25, Schedule, Para III (13) and (14) of Pakistan (Administration of Homeland Property) Act (XII of 1957) , Sections 2 (3), 3 (2), 7 to 10, 22 and 41 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act (XLII of 1956), Section 2 (4) of the Withdrawal of Property and Displaced Persons (Cancellation) Act (1975). XIV), Section 2 (2) Civil Code of Conduct (V8 1908), O VI, Rr 2 and 10 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 2020 Suite of Declaration and Civil Plot for Building Prohibition (Building Site) Pt. Purchase a suit plot through a public auction in favor of the O & PTD issuance department's population defendant's predecessor The fact that the suit is in the possession of the plot in favor of the defendant since its purchase has been confirmed by the decree of his consent to the plaintiff asserts that his claim is the owner of the plot and that he claims It has Muslim ownership of its predecessor. 19 years after consent and 24 years from the date of PTO, without claim of decree for possession of the suit plot and voluntary consent, the auction of the suit plot and the issuance of PTO / PTD in favor of the defendant's predecessor. In its applications for the Department was not challenged by the Settlement Department with clear and specific objections to the Department's suit plot. Documents presented by the property and its auction and evidence presented by the defendants that show the defendants auctioning the suit plot as vacant property, paying their price through the foreclosure book and consent. By the approval of the decree, its sale has been confirmed in its favor. The foregoing was neither objected to by the plaintiff nor his famous high court advocate from Tarmatan lawyer