Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ versus MEMBER, COLONIES

The Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3), abolished the applicant's State Land Allotment, collector on the ground that he was not eligible to acquire the proprietary rights before it was barred by the applicants. The commissioner was dismissed. Premature amendments to the Board of Revenue were rejected as well as his constitutional application in which he challenged the legality of the Revenue Authority's orders, which was one of the reasons. That the High Court was present in dismissing the constitutional petition in which the applicant was not alerted. Not only was the petitioner's appeal and review time delayed for his remediation, but after the Board of Revenue Petitioner rejected the amendment, it took almost two years to reach the High Court in the constitutional jurisdiction. The order to cancel was approved. In his absence by the Collector and without informing him and he may not prefer the appeal on time. The High Court had taken notice of it, but it was rejected on the ground that even if the applicants' history of cancellation of the allotment was taken as a starting point for the limitation, there was nothing in the record Has given priority to its appeal. Within the stipulated period beginning on this date there was also a lack of satisfactory explanation as to why the applicant did not file his review petition with the Board of Revenue in a timely manner and it took almost two to two years to approach the High Court. , It is not capable of interfering with the Supreme Court. Appeal refused advocate for immigration from Leepa lawyer