Find a Lawyer

LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SIRAJ DIN

Section 3 (1) of the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act (XV of 1952), section 6 (3) of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) of the plaintiff's case was dismissed by the trial court on disputed property. But the earlier decision in the Sanadia Appellate Court as well as the Appeal Court as well as the review of the applicants / authority of the relevant court in the review was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the applicant was unable to present a notification to show. It was found that the disputed property was acquired and thus has no proof. Indicate that in fact the aforesaid property was included in a notification for the acquisition and that it was properly reviewed by the petitioner that the disputed property had been obtained, it was also presented to the High Court. Who correctly remarked that instead of giving a specific notice, the applicant cited a large area without mentioning the disputed property, which was specially acquired, and that the whole area was thirty-seven acres. As much as the area where the dispute was is controversial immigration advocates email from Besham lawyer