Find a Lawyer

ABDUR RAHIM versus STATE

Martial Law Regulation 1959 No. 9 Shadow II Withdrawal Property Act and Homelessness Act (XIV of 1975), Section 3 (1) (b) Appellants were allotted land instead of eviction among local Muslims and When the Muslim owners applied for refusal, the appellants claimed that the withdrawal of the eviction law had nothing to do with their allotment, which was regulated under Martial Law Regulation No. 9, which had limitations. And there were a number of conditions for acquisition of land under the Martial Law Regulation No. 9 and the Act of 1975, and one of these was that the appellants could only be allotted that much land, if all of them were included. Under the land the whole land should be included. In the case of Act XIV of 1959, the provisions contained in the meaning of MLR 9 of 1959 could not be exceeded, just as under the MLR 9 of 1959 it was a position which was already available to them. On 12/2 acres, his appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court when you need a advocate from Sara e Naurang lawyer