Find a Lawyer

W.A.S.A. versus NIAZ MUHAMMAD

No material was recorded in assessing the compensation factors of section 23 land, which shows that the owners of the land under question, the source established for the provision of landowners, were not accused of cultivating the land in their original claim. And no source was identified for irrigating such land outside. No evidence of payment of evidence Malaya or Sh usher was offered, cultivating any part of the acquired land. Evidence has been presented of the fact of the owners' negligence, on the contrary, the evidence stated that the suit property was saline, barren and wasteland developed. Not far from the area, the Touch Trial Court made conclusions based solely on wishes or assertions that were recorded by the parties without reference to the material brought on record, ignoring the principles and laws established by it. For the court was merely recorded. And the owners of the land should be given adequate compensation at the rate of a certain amount besides the acreage lawer from fb area from Mastoi lawyer