Find a Lawyer

MANGTA versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB

Vacant Property and Homelessness Act (repealed) Act 1975 Section 2 (2) Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 12 (2) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) more than the applicant. Their privilege was revoked on the request of the land informants, who claimed that they were filing a constitutional application for 200 Kanal applicants and thereafter withdrawing the same case on the basis of a compromise with the informants. Under it he had to maintain 500 kanals and 10 mars and retain the rest. The civil suit and appeal of the applicants through the informants failed and the matter was filed by the High Court under the competence to file an application under Section 12 (2), Civil Procedure Code, 1908 under Section 12 (2), Civil. It was reviewed before withdrawing the High Court from the point of view of lifting. Code of Conduct, 1908 Applicant claims that 500 Kanal 10 Marl of land is based on a compromise with private parties, settlement officials had nothing to do with getting the applicants entitled to 200 K. The LS may be satisfied with the applicant's claim (s) informing the applicant of the settlement under the settlement when they received notice that the applicant did not have the right to search the claim pending by the informant. Is found. And the applicant, fixed on 200 kanals, had no concern as to how the disposal of the resumed units would be done on the request of the applicants under Section 12 (2), Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Was misconstrued as having left no case for interference. Appeal denied in the circumstances online advocate from Dargai lawyer