Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN versus CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, AZAD J&K, MUZAFFARABAD

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rehabilitation Act, 1974 Section 11 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Section 44 Constitutional application for allotment of land in question in favor of the respondents; I did not apply for the allotment. The respondents have received final status on the basis that the allotment challenging the ownership of the allotment was that it was made without detecting the entitlement of the allotment, in the constitutional application phase on the question of entitlement. There will be some power, the question of entitlement is finally resolved / concluded by the authorities based on facts. Findings available to them and related to the question, especially when a search request before the Authority was also attacked, which, in keeping with the relevant facts and law, did not result in the issuance of notice at the time of allotment. Offer not allowed The allotment was not the result of the allotment for the petitoo. The nurses never applied for its allotment, so no notice was required on the applicants. Allotment questions in question were also fully dealt with by the rehabilitation authorities. There was an incident and, apart from this, some records were not brought in to support the applicant's position through detention. That the decisions of the rehabilitation authorities were illegal, with no jurisdiction or legal authority, the High Court can only intervene in the Special Tribunal's order when it concludes that the order was without jurisdiction or legal authority. Where any court or tribunal has jurisdiction and has set specific questions. online advocate from Mardan lawyer