Find a Lawyer

WAJID ALI versus WALAYAT SHAH

Article 199 The Constitution affected by the decision of the Constitution Petition and the Homelessness Act (repealed) Act (XIV of 1975), Section 2 (2), was not made a party in which the applicant (the buyer of value) and the respondent Land disputes between the applicants (Jammu and Kashmir for the care of asylum seekers) land matters in the name of the applicant 4 On 1971, the Commissioner of Settlement on an amendment filed by the Settlements The petitioner had succeeded in the constitutional petition filed in 1987 and decided on 7. 3 1993, under which the order of cancellation was set aside. But the petitioner did not make the defendants (who were in the care of the J&K refugees as refugees) because the party is the constitutional petition was passed in which the respondent was not made a party. Because the applicant has filed a constitutional petition against them. He was guilty of suppressing material facts in 1987 (decided on 3 1993), and did not disclose that he had accepted the cancellation order in another constitutional petition filed in 1971, pending the settlement if the applicant. Such material facts would be brought to the notice of the High Court. Therefore, the subsequent constitutional petition could have been accepted on 3 1993 so that the applicant could not have benefited from the order of the High Court, which was passed on 7 199 1993, in which only the Settlement Authority was allowed to pass the Part Order in the Constitution. Was passed in which the respondents were not made a party so their rights on the underground land would not be affected. best advocate from Kotmomin lawyer