Find a Lawyer

GHULAM SARWAR versus MEMBER (COLONIES)

Government Lands (Punjab) 's Colonization Act 1912 Section 10 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) petitioner's petition for the allotment of Moin Ahta of \ Matin Ahta of the Assistant Commissioner was initially allotted to the applicant. That the order was maintained. However, in a review of the Additional Commissioner's Board of Revenue, however, it was found that en moen ehita and settlement Ihatas may not be available as applicants for landlord, instead of applying for an available \ Abadakari Ihata \ Applicant should be given. A constitutional petition was filed against the cancellation of \ Makari Ahata, which was rejected on the ground that the applicant, as a landlord, was not entitled to the allotment of the Board of Revenue, which could not be questioned in section 18. ? The applicant was allotted for the complaint that \ Ihata \ is no longer available, instead of seeking the allotment, he had to blame himself. The Member, in pursuance of the observation of the Board of Revenue, filed a constitutional petition in the High Court, seeking to uproot his claim for allotment of Ahata under question, a petition which lasted for nearly 16 to 16 years. The court was hearing. In the meantime, K Kabkari Litas others were allotted to others in which the applicant was of the view that the Board of Revenue had acted illegally in allowing the defendants to review it without the knowledge of it. Appeal has been banned. Such a debate was neither made before the Board of Revenue nor before the High Court High Court, however, its order found that power of attorney advocate Dudial lawyer