Find a Lawyer

ALLAH DAD versus ELAHI BAKHSH

The evidence of the town in the pre-occupied town / sub-division in connection with the pre-occupation town / sub-division in connection with the Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1913 and documentary evidence on record also proved that the landowner `Chiniot old ' Was located in the old city of Where the practice of occupation existed before the state even before the implementation of the Pre-Impression Act, 1913, the fact that the house occupied by a particular locality was not sufficient to show that the independent sub-division was or was a There was a new settlement, which had previously been the practice of forcible occupation. The plaintiff did not prevail in the written statement that the city was subdivided, subdivided into separate divisions, the evidence on record fully established that the question of house M was pre-occupied by the place where it was located. ? property advocates from Kamalia Musa lawyer