Find a Lawyer

ATTA MUHAMMAD versus SHAH MUHAMMAD

Government Land (Colony) Act 1912 Section 10 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 Ihta was allotted to the predecessor in the interest of the appellant's father; after the death of the original alot, his father paid the price and acquired the property. Only 2 / 3rd of Ihata's rights to the third part of Ihata were set aside and a separate number has been given after the respondent owned the process of paying the price in relation to 1 / 3rd part of Ihaa Appellants. Registered civil lawsuit claims 1/3 Ihata was dismissed against the defendant, but the first appeal was upheld by the High Court in a review case. The Knut \ predicate did not claim any interest on the appropriate part, after which they could not turn. Subsequently, claiming e-property at a later stage, limited its claim to only 2/3 of its process, only the appellant's predecessor left a separate Ihata price grant that did not pay him. Thus no question of breach of the terms of the grant can be raised. attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Kot Bunglow lawyer