Sections 2 (12) of the Homeless (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 The relocation of the evacuation shop was not challenged by the authenticity of the deputy rehabilitation officer's report in the transfer dispute to the defendant. The cases were separate units, having different numbers, were evaluated separately in the tax records of the department and have been used as a shop since independence and even before the DRO report, It also shows that the shop was never in the possession of the owner of the adjacent factory in the disputed factory, the landlord was different in the dispute The applicant's premises in which the factory dispute was transferred were considered as a shop and an independent unit, and the auction was preceded by a fact finding before the transfer authority to the factory in favor of the transfer. That the cover was a separate unit and not a part of the factory applicant, thus cannot be interfered with
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
