Find a Lawyer

M. MUSARAT versus SHAFIQ HYDER

Special Relief Act 1877 Section 42 Homeless Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Section 25 Pakistan (Administration for Vacant Property) Act (XII of 1957), Section 3A Civil Procedure Code (V 19) (18) A. VII, R 10 For the declaration of ownership of the property in question, and for the cancellation of the order of his allotment in favor of the plaintiff, the jurisdiction was returned on the basis of the excuse of sanctions. In the indictment, the civil court lacked jurisdiction to decide on such a case. The appellate court dismissed the return of the case with the removal order, whether or not any property was to be vacated, but the property under review was not vowed, no such property, without the will of the defendant. It can be understood that in the case of Custodian acting intelligently, transfer of property to property was not sufficient to overturn the results of the civil court of both the courts by the Settlement Authority. The jurisdiction was determined that the order of the Settlement Authority was valid after six years of challenge. There is ample evidence for the past thirty years of record and litigation, the High Court did not consider the case remanded. ? Based on the evidence, the defendants prosecute the decision that they were the landlord's landlord law websites from Mubarik Pur lawyer