IQBAL BEGUM versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR/NOTIFIED OFFICER, SHEIKHUPURA
Homelessness (Land Settlement) Act 1958 Section 10 & 11 Withdrawal of Property and Homelessness Act (XIV of 1975), Section 2 Constitution Petition Claimant's Competent Question Applicants are entitled to land allotment. And their claims were not acknowledged to the extent of specific units, but for those who got their title from a rival allottee, the allotment of their underground land proved to be fake and the allottee itself was a fake and fraudulent individual. Proved and the respondents were claimed to be shopkeepers / transfer from such fraudulent / fraudulent persons to the shopkeeper / transfer There can be no better title than when the seller's title disappears or if it is found that it has no title, the seller will sink in with it. Treatment against the seller but he did not have the right to support his seller's cause or take his case higher than a vendor matter. Initial action was resolved by revoking competing claimants in the privilege. Claimants were found to be expelled under the vendor. And after the constitutional petition filed by the respondents was rejected, the claims of the applicants of the judiciary have been confirmed again and their supporters have been knocked out, and their rival claimants Has been knocked down. (s (Legal heirs of the original claimant) Case Section 2 (3)) is pending in the sense of eviction property and the homelessness law (repealed) Act 1975. And thus they were entitled to allotment of the land they owned. Restore and re-allocate permanently
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
