MUHAMMAD AZAM versus CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY AJ&K MUZAFFARABAD
Section 22, 23, 25 and 46 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VII of 1974), the applicant had moved the petition for restoration of the property by prohibiting the execution of the section 44 written petition property restoration but vacated it. The place was declared and the review application was subsequently denied by Evocu Property Detention, with exclusive jurisdiction of the property and it acted lawfully until it was proved that the authority or tribunal had reached the limit Orders in more than the limit were approved or the result. The applicant for not reading the evidence or misrepresentation did not succeed in identifying any reading or misinterpretation of the evidence and could not bring his case in contempt or limitation of delay and no illegal proceedings or irregularities or Depending on the jurisdiction the property was not supervised by the property owner, no explanation for the delayed institution was not recorded on the petition and to some extent limited to the date of the knowledge or to some extent the penalties. I was not mentioned. No request was made for such an affidavit or oath Temporary ban was imposed on the application, which was a result of the delay in filing the application. There was no good or good reason for the petitioner's and late condolences. The Property of Equity Property Search was a fact finding and the High Court could neither resolve the question of facts nor appeal the conclusions of the Court of Conciliation. Can sit as
