BEFORE LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION,LAHORE

PRESENT:

Mr. Najam Saeed, Chairman.Mr. Javaid Akhtar, Member.

Reference No. 09/2015

Mohammad Nadeem slo Mohammad Siddique, rIo 8-Hyder Road,Chowk Neelibar, Islam Pura, Lahore

Vs.

1. Lahore Development Authority through Director General, 467/D-II,Main Boulevard, M.A. Johar Town, Lahore.

2. Director, Land Development I, 467/D-II, Main Boulevard, M.A. JoharTown, Lahore.

Order

Muhammad Nadeem slo Muhammad Siddique submitted anapplication at One Window on 30.04.2015 vide receipt No. 2205639 forfiling reference to the LDA Commission. The Authorized Officer under sub­section (4) of section 32 of the LDA (Amendment) Act, 2013 read with sub­rule (1) of the Rule 7 of the Lahore Development Authority CommissionRules, 2014, referred the case to the Commission which was received on07.12.2015. It was entered in the Institution Register at Serial No.09 of2015. Notices were issued to the applicant, the Director LandDevelopment-I, the Land Acquisition Collector, LDA and the Tehsildar, NiazBaig. Statement of the applicant was recorded on oath and record ofPatwari, Halqa Niaz Baig and the LAC branch of LDA was consulted. Thedocuments produced by the applicant, the Patwari Halqa Niaz Baig and theLAC, LDA were examined and photo copies thereof were placed on thereference file. File of the plot No. 52-E, Block-JIIII, attached with thereference by the Land Directorate-I (hereinafter referred to as plot file) wasexamined.

2. According to the reference filed by the LDA and documentavailable in the plot file Mr. Sarwar Ali Slo Babu Shah Din was awardedowner of land measuring 00K-17M falling in Khasra No 13331 of MouzaNiaz Baig Lahore. Exemption was granted in the shape of one plotmeasuring 05 Marla to Mr. Sarwar Ali by the then DLD on 04-11-1993 videpara 52/N. Allocation Committee allocated plot No. 437, Block-M of M.A.Johar Town Scheme Lahore vide para No. 53/N ation letter rega ding

• I

1

plot No. 437 Block-M was issued in favour of Mr. Sarwar Ali vide No.JT/NB-11I4301/7355 dated 21-06-1995. (Page 000039). Exemption letterwas issued vide letter No. JT/NB-11I4031/13010 dated 08-05-1999 (page000055). Possession order was issued vide letter No. JT/NB-11I4031/22273dated 05-08-1999 (page 000065). Later on the said plot was exchangedvide letter No. JT/NB-11I4031/20578 dated 26-09-2000 (page 000067). Inthe subject of the letter plot No. 52-E has been mentioned but in the bodyof the letter plot No. 475, Block-Jill I has been allocated/exempted in lieu ofplot No. 437 previously allocated.

3. The reference filed by the LOA, inter alia, contains the followingpoints as well:

i. Double exemption report available at para 357 -358/N. As perreport file No. JT/NB-11I4031was passed in the name of Mr.Sarwar Ali and there is no double exemption.

ii. Land Acquisition Collector, LOA verified the ownership of Mr.Sarwar Ali at para 290/N and 305/N of the noting part of the plotfile.

iii. Credit verification of the payments made in respect of theallocated plot is available at para 338-341/N. First demandnotice, Development Charges in respect of previously allocatedplot No. 437 Block-M, balance development charges in respectof plot No. 52-E Block J/3, and two transfer fees were verifiedby the Revenue Directorate. List of the amount paid against plotNo. 258 Block-M was also obtained from Revenue Directorateat para 401-405/N which shows that development charges inrespect of plot No. 258 Block-M were deposited on 06-05-2003by the exemptee Mr. Sarwar Ali against above mentioned plotfile, which confirm that actually plot No. 258 Block-M wasallocated in lieu of plot No. 437 Block-M but plot No. 52-E BlockJ/3 was grabbed on the basis of forged documents.

iv. The status of plots No. 437 and 258 Block-M and plot No. 52-EBlock-J/3 in the possession register and as per at site wassought from Directorate of Estate Management-I, LOA.Concerned branch reported at paras 361-364/N and 390-395/Nof the noting part of the plot file that possession of plot No. 437Block-M was not handed over to anyone and the plot is vacantat site. Possession of plot No. 258 Block-M was handed over tothe exemptee Mr. Sarwar Ali and there is a boundary wall atsite. Possession of plot No. 52-E Block J/3 was also handedover to exemptee Mr. Sarwar Ali and there is a double story

hOUS~ ats:te. ~

~04'f6 _~2

v. Report of Town Planning Directorate is available at para 374/Nand 393-394/N of the plot file, which shows that building plan ofplot No. 52-E Block-J/3 was sanctioned in favour of the firsttransferee Mr. Imran Ahmad Malik while completion certificatehas not yet been issued. Building files for plots No. 437 and 258Block-M do not exist in record and there is no entry in therecord as well. It is evident that no building plans weresanctioned against the said plots by the TP Wing.

LOA in its reference has concluded that exchange of plot in the instant caseis bogus and fabricated.

4. Perusal of the plot file further revealed that in para No. 121 ofthe noting of plot file No.JTNB/1I/4032at page 000033, an application hasbeen referred to, which states that some construction in a portion of plotNo. 258, Block-M, M.A. Johar Town Scheme exists. In para No. 113another application is mentioned in which applicant has stated that he hasnot been informed about the exchange of plot. In para 141-142 there is aproposal from CMP for exchange and some plots have been proposed forallocation. The note portion shows that the previous entry was rubbed andnumber of the plot No 52-E was over written. It cannot be expected of thethen CMP being a very senior officer that he instead of writing a new note,would have rubbed the plot number to change the proposed plot when hewas competent to reallocate any other plot by cancelling the previouslyallotted plot. There are no clear orders of the Director Land Developmentabout the approval of any particular plot for allocation. This original notesheet is placed on the plot file No. JT/NB-11/4032and deals with theexchange of plot No. 438, Block-M on an application of Muhammad Asif s/oShah Din and plot No. 247 Block J-2 was allocated. But at the noting sheetpage 000038 at para No. 134 in the deposit statement of AccountsDepartment at serial No. 03 a deposit of Rs. 205/- by Sarwar Ali on 06-05-2003 has been mentioned against the plot No. 52-E, Block J/3 againstChallan No. 41/45. The entry of 52-E, Block J/3 has been written aftererasing previous entry.

5. According to General Ledger Computerized Statement dated10-11-2015, the amount of Rs. 205/- was deposited on 06-05-2003 inrespect of plot No. 258, Block-M against voucher No. 41-45 with individualnumber 11202580. However at page 000075 copy of a deposit of Rs. 205/­against voucher No. 18848 with individual No. 10900525 for payment asdevelopment charges in respect of plot 52-E, Block-J/3 is also available.But this deposit could not be verified from General Ledger ComputerizedStatement mentioned above. As such it appears that this is a bogusChallan and has been placed in the file to claim plot 5 -E, Block-J/3.

3

6. From the record it further transpires that possession of twoplots i.e. plot No. 258, Block-M and plot No. 52-E, Block J/3 was given toMr. Sarwar Ali. The possession of plot No 258 Block-M as per exemptionregister was given on 19-02-2004 (Para 391/N) and a boundary wall wasconstructed around plot No. 258, Block-M when the LDA retrieved thepossession of the plot on 24-08-2015. (Para 392/N). Whereas thepossession of plot No.52-E, Block J/3 was given vide letter No. JT/NB-II/4031/1732 dated 24-07-2008. (para 361 of note sheet). As such Sarwar Aligot possession of both the plots fraudulently on the basis of exemptionagainst Khasra No. 13331 in connivance with LDA officers and officials.LDA should take legal action against Mr. Sarwar Ali and the LDA staff whocolluded with him.

7. Mr. Adil Raza, Assistant Director, DLD-I, LDA confirmed in hisstatement that plot Nos. 258 and 437 Block-M, M.A. Johar Town are inpossession of the LDA and have not been allotted to anyone. He was of theview that in the para 141 (copy of note sheet at page 000029) the numbersof plot 247 and 52-E Block-J3 have been erased and re-written.

8. It is pertinent to mention here that as per report of dispatcher atpara 400/N, letter No. 1155-1156 dated 09-07-2003 was actually issuedregarding plot No. 258, Block-M. Alleged possession order of Plot No. 52-EBlock J/3 is available at page 000087 having letter No. 1732 dated 21-7-2003 while the report of dispatcher at para 399/N shows that letter No.1732 dated 21-07-2003 was actually issued regarding plot No. 258 Block­M. The above facts reveal that actually the exemption as well aspossession letter were initially prepared in respect of plot No. 258 Block-Mbut subsequently the record was tempered and allocation of plot No. 52-E,Block J/3 was maneuvered fraudulently. Prima facie bogus exchange letter,exemption letter and possession order were prepared and placed in the file.Letter addressed to the Estate Officer for handing over possession of plotNo. 52-E is dated 21.07.2003 and he was supposed to deliver thepossession with 15 days. The date of expiry of the building period of theplot was 31.12.2003 and by overwriting it has been changed to 21.08.2008.(page 000087). The possession certificate on the file (page 000091) showsthat possession was given on 24-03-2008 i.e. there is a gap of more than 4years. In case the proceedings had been genuine the owner would havecertainly taken over possession within the prescribed period of 15 days.

9. Ostensibly, Mr. Sarwar Ali s/o Babu Shah Din was allowedexemption of 05 Marla plot against his land acquired in Khasra No. 13331/5as he purportedly became owner of the 00K-17 M land in Khasra No.13331/5 through mutation No. 6367 sanctioned on 28-10-1979 on the basisof a sale deed registered at No. 8072 dated 02-04-1 79 through which he

4

had purchased 17/117share in Khasra No 13331/5 measuring 5K-17Mfrom Barkat Ali and Hussain Bibi in Mouza Thokar Niaz Baig. The relevantrecord was examined by the Commission during its visit of Patwar HalqaNiaz Baig which revealed that as per Parat Patwar, the mutation No. 6367is still intact but there is an unattested copy of the Parat Sarkar attachedwith the Parat Patwar which shows that the mutation was reviewed andwas cancelled on 28-02-1997 under the order of the CollectorConsolidation dated 21.11.1996. There is a note on the LAC, LOA's recordthat under the order of the Collector dated 09-03-1999 and in the light ofthe decision of the Commissioner, dated 02.02.1999, mutation No. 6367along with other mutations were declared to have been cancelled on theground that Hussain Bibi and Barkat Ali sold land in excess of theirrespective share. The above entry in the LAC's record is dated 04-07-2011bearing sheet No. 000061 of award part B. On the basis of the abovereview orders the award in the name of Mr. Sarwar Ali was amended alongwith the award of other awardees i.e. after 13 years. Sarwar Ali was nomore owner of the land in Khasra No 13331/5 when exemption wasallowed on 08-05-1999. The applicant was confronted with the above factson the record and was provided copies thereof and was asked to rebut theentries.

10. The applicant appeared on 06.04.2016 along with his Counsel,Mr. Muhammad Tahir and produced copy of the order No. ACC/108/2000(EDOR) dated 20.03.2002 passed by the then Executive District OfficerRevenue, Lahore in the case Sajjad Malik vs. Muhammad Ali whereby theorders of the Collector (Consolidation) regarding review of MutationNO.3851 was set aside. As the order of the Consolidation Officer dated28.02.1997 is still in the field in respect of mutation no 6367, the contentionof the applicant that his predecessor is the senior buyer and that he wasnot affected by excess sale by Barkat Ali and Hussain Bibi cannot beaccepted. Unless and until the orders dated 28.02.1997 in respect of themutation No. 6367 are reversed by the competent authority, Sarwar Ali'stitle in respect 17 Marla land cannot be considered to be authentic andindisputable. The applicant as successor in interest of Mr. Sarwar Ali havethe right to file application for revision/review of the order dated28.02.1997. Be that as it may, in the presence of review orders dated28.02.1997 Mr. Sarwar Ali's title has become defective against whichexemption has been granted and the clause 16 of the exemption letter hasbecome operative and he cannot be considered entitled for exemption inlieu of the said land till the review order is set aside by the competent

~~~rOJc:J) \ ~ '-{_\ \b 5

authority.

11. Later on the exemption of plot No. 52-E, Block-J/3 wastransferred in favour of Mr. Imran Ahmad Malik Slo Malik MuhammadAshraf. Transfer letter was issued vide letter No. LOAlJT/NB-1I/4031/7934dated 08-11-2008 (page-133/C) on the same terms and conditions as itwas held by the alleged original exemptee. The exemption was furthertransferred in favour of Muhammad Nadeem Slo Muhammad Siddique videletter No. OLO-1/1531dated 20-04-2010 (page 200/C).

12. Mohammad Nadeem in his statement on oath made before thisCommission stated that he purchased plot No. 52-E Block J/3, M.A. JoharTown from Imran Ahmed Malik after payment of Rs. 21, 50,0001- through aproperty dealer Shahid Chohan. He claimed that before purchasing theplot, he checked the plot file of LOA, sale deed of the land in the name ofSarwar Ali and Parcha Khatooni of Khasra No. 13331/5 of Mouza ThokarNiaz Baig. He added that he filed an application for further transfer of plotNo. 52-E, Block-J/3 submitted vide One Window No. 1696711 dated 22-11-2012 which is still pending for decision by the LOA.

13. It appears from the perusal of the record that MohammadNadeem on one window deposited an application for transfer of plot No.52-E, J/3 to Mr. Mohammad lIyas slo Muhammad Naqi rIo C/2399, KoochaOogran, Nai Bazaar, Lohari Gate, Lahore on 07-11-2012 but the transferprocess was not completed. Meanwhile Kokab Waseem dlo ManzoorHussain on 15-11-2012 filed an application before OLO-I that MohammadNadeem has agreed to sell the property to her but he was not transferringthe property in her name. Before this a Civil Suit No.1 0/1 2012 was filed byMst. Kokab Waseem on 12-01-2012 for specific performance on the basisof agreement to sell dated 22-09-2011 and for direction to MuhammadNadeem to execute the sale deed. The suit was dismissed and an appealthereof was also dismissed by the Additional Judge. One RFA No.893/2012 was filed by Mst. Kokab Waseem in Lahore High Court whichwas allowed on 06-12-2012 and the appeal and judgment and decreespassed by the lower court were set aside and case was sent to the trialcourt for consolidation of the cases pending in the court and a decisionthereon. Mst. Kokab again filed an RFA No. 775/2013 against the decreedated 01-07-2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Barkat Ali Nonari.The said decree was passed in favour of Mst. Kokab on the condition thatshe will deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 33,50,000 within fifteen daye.g. upto 15-07-2013. She inter alia pleaded that the trial court did notdecide the application of Muhammad lIyas slo Mohammad Naqi forimpleading him a party in the suit who has claimed that he had purchasedthe plot No.52-B, Block J/3 from Mohammad Nadeem. She also claimedthat upper portion of the house has been rented out one Samar Gul slo

6

Jannat Gul. This RFA 775/2013 was dismissed as withdrawn on 04-09-2013 by the Honourable High Court on the statement of Mst. KokabWaseem.

14. Later on Mst. Kokab Naseem filed a suit for permanentinjunction in the court of Senior Civil Judge Lahore alleging thatMohammad Nadeem malafidely and in connivance with the defendantsLOA officials was using delaying tactics to get the NOC from LOA and wasprolonging the transfer process. She claimed that as a consequence of asettlement made on 03-09-2014, she had deposited the remaining suitamount of Rs.2B,50,000/- in the court and on the other hand MohammadNadeem in accordance with the settlement had to produce NOC from LOAand get transfer the plot in her name. The applicant Muhammad Nadeemhas admitted pendency of the civil suit in the court. But the issuescontained in the Civil Suit are different from the issue raised in the presentreference. The issue raised in the reference is about the issuance of NOCto the applicant with respect to the exemption of the plot transferred in hisfavour and the objection raised by the LOA for its further transfer. Thematter in the Civil Court relates to the dispute regarding sale of the plotbetween the applicant and Mst. Kokab Naseem. This Commission has noconcern with the dispute between the private parties even if the LOA is alsoa party therein. The case before the Commission is that the transfer ofinterest in favour of the applicant has been called in question by theAuthority by not issuing NOC for further transfer of the plot.

15. Imtiaz Ahmed Malik, the first purchaser appears a party to thefraud because both the applications for transfer of plot and affidavit for saleof plot No. 52-E, Block J/3 were signed on 23-04 200B before thepossession of plot was handed over by LOA on 24-07-200B.The purchaseof plot from an exemptee before transfer of possession of plot by LOAcreates serious doubt about the genuineness of the transaction and theclaim of the original exemptee. In view of the above facts available onrecord the LOA has not issued NOC to the applicant for further transfer ofthe plot and thus called in question the transfer of interest in favour of theapplicant in the above discussed plot. Be that as it may, despite the allegedfraud/collusion, the Commission in view of sub section (4) of section 32 ofthe LOA (Amendments) Act, 2013 read with sub-section (5) of Section 32 ofthe Act (ibid) has to consider the present reference to resolve the dispute.The above mentioned provisions of the Act are reproduced below:-

"(4) The Authority or any officer so authorized by the Authority, on itsown motion or on the application of any person, may refer any matter

~~i!haefa~~emc:~S:ii~nm:O~eC:u~~,ideration,reSOI~ >

- 6f\c:::,\,J,_\ \6

"(5) The Commission shall consider and make appropriaterecommendations on matters pertaining to;

(a) bona fide purchase for value owing to irregular or fraudulenttransaction in respect of property, the extent of legality or illegalityof the transaction, apportionment of responsibility in irregular orfraudulent transaction and translation of this responsibility intomonetary terms and recommendation of such conditions, fines,rate or fix price, retrieval of property and demolition as deemedappropriate according to the nature of each case."

16. Although LDA has alleged that plot No. 52-E, Block J/3 wasshown allocated to Mr. Sarwar Ali on the basis of bogus and fabricateddocuments yet it has not challenged the transfer proceedings of theexemption of the plot in favour of the present applicant. However,exemption of the plot was transferred to the applicant by LDA on the sameterms and conditions on which it was held by the original allottee. Relevantportion of transfer letter No.JT/NB-11I4031dated16-04-2010 is reproducedbelow:

"The allocation of plot cited above is hereby transferred in thename of Buyer below, in view of verification of record on the sameterms and condition as it was held by Mr. Sarwar Ali s/o BabuShah Din the original exemptee vide Exemption letter No. 1155dated 09-07-2003"

The above terms and conditions of the transfer bear signatures of theapplicant/his thumb impression. The transfer application dated 01-03-2010(page 01630f plot file No. JT/NB-11I4031)also contains the followingendorsement verified by the applicant;

"I endorse the above application and if the property is transferredto me, I as successor in interest or (assignee) shall be subject toall the conditions and terms contained in theAgreement/Exemption letter between the transferor and theLahore Department Authority."

In the affidavit at page 01670f plot file No. JT/NB-11I4031, filed with thetransfer set the applicant undertook to abide by the terms and conditions ofthe sale of the said plot and to comply with all orders and directions andinstructions etc. in force or issued from time to time by the LDA. Therefore,whatever rights had come to vest in the applicant, those did not constitutefull and absolute title in the plot. The applicant was bound to fulfill theconditions laid down in the exemption letter No. JT/NB-11I4031/13010 dated08-05-1999 (page 55/C) read with the letter No, JT/NB-11I4031/115 dated

~4.(68

09.07.2003 (page 77/e), notwithstanding the fact that these letters weregenuine or not. The applicant, therefore, was well aware of the fact that hispurchase was subject to the incident of those conditions which arecontained in the above mentioned exemption letters. According to theterms and conditions of exemption, the LOA had a right to cancel theallocation/exemption of plot under clause 17 of the Exemption Letterswhich reads;

(b) "That if at any stage your title is proved to be defective, theexemption of the plot shall stand automatically withdrawn and LOAwill be entitled to take over the land along with structure standingthereon without payment of any damages or compensation. (E &o are to be taken up at any stage.)

17. Although the exemption was transferred by LOA i.e. the realowner of the plot, yet the fact remains that the transfer was madeconditionally and the applicant accepted those conditions without anyobjection. Every purchaser of exemption rights is supposed to haveknowledge that the transaction of purchase is subject to those conditionswhich are contained in the agreement for exemption or in the exemptionletter. At this stage the contention of the applicant that he was not aware ofthe terms and conditions cannot be accepted. This being so, the vendeedespite being innocent buyer cannot raise the plea of protection on theprinciple of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which relates tothe transfer of property by an ostensible owner. In the present case it was aconditional sale and the applicant is bound to fulfill the conditions acceptedby him at the time of transfer of exemption in his favour. Moreover,applicant's rights being vendee of exemption rights cannot exceed therights vested in the vendor who was not full owner of the plot and did nothad proprietary rights of the plot. Therefore, for acquiring proprietary rightsthe applicant is subject to the conditions of the sale as per terms andconditions of exemption.

18. Land for M.A. Johar Town Scheme was acquired on the basisof exemption which means that 30% of the land of owners was exemptedfrom compulsory acquisition and they, on certain specific terms andconditions, were allocated developed plot equal to their right of exemptioni.e. 30% of their total holding acquired/surrendered. The LOA has nottransferred proprietary rights of the plot even to the original exemptee norcan the subsequent purchaser of exemption claim proprietary rights justbecause the transfer has been made by the LOA. At the best he ispurchaser of the conditional rights which despite the fraud can beprotected. Title of the exempted plot, even after transfer of exemption,remains vested in the LOA till fulfillment of the terms and conditions of

9

exemption. The defect in the ownership of the original exemptee's land orplea of fraud or irregularities committed by the LDA or by the RevenueDepartment functionaries does not absolve the applicant from abiding bythe terms and conditions of the transfer of exemption accepted by him.Unless the terms and conditions accepted by him at the time of transfer ofexemption are fulfilled, the LDA is not bound to transfer title of the plot tohim.

19. The original exemptee paid development charges only and inlieu of the price of land of the plot, he was supposed to transfer 00K-17 Mland to LDA by execution of an exchange deed. The present applicant alsodid not pay the price of the land of the plot to the LDA and Mr. Sarwar Ali'stitle is defective and he is not in a position to transfer 17-Marla land to theLDA. The applicant accepted the terms and conditions of transfer ofexemption in his favour and he was supposed to determine the price paidfor purchase of exemption rights keeping in view the terms and conditionsof exemption/transfer. At this stage he cannot deny the right of the LDA tocancel the plot in terms of clause 17 of the Exemption Letter No. JT/NB-11/4031dated 08-05-1999. As the title of the land acquired has been provedto be defective, the LDA is entitled to take over the plot along with structurestanding thereon, by cancelling the exemption granted. In order to resolvethe dispute, the applicant should pay for transfer of title of the plot in hisfavour by the LDA, the price of the land of the plot worked out on the basisof a formula discussed hereinafter.

20. In order to avoid cancellation of the exemption and resolve thedispute, this Commission considers that the applicant should pay to theLDA the price of the plot excluding development charges in lieu of the 17Marla land. However, it will be highly unreasonable to ask the applicant topay the present market price of the plot. Therefore, working has been madeon the basis of two DC's valuation tables; the valuation table in vogue whenthe exemption was transferred for the first time and the present valuationtable. The applicant will be required to pay the amount whichever is lower.

21. According to the DC's valuation table notified on 30.06.2008which was nearest to the date of 1st transfer of exemption by the LDA i.e.08.11.2008, the price per Marla in M.A. Johar Town, is Rs. 2,00,000/-. Thusprice of 106.4 sq.m. plot comes to Rs. 9,92,856/-. The applicant'spredecessor paid to the LDA Rs.23, 053/- on 10.01.1993 as developmentcharges which only can be considered a part of the price of the plot. Suigas charges paid are not the part of the price of the plot and similarly theamounts paid subsequently for building period extensions or any additionalamount recovered on account delayed payments cannot be consideredpart of the cost of the plot. The first amount the basis DC's aluation

10

table plus mark up at the rate of 17.5% per annum for delayed payment asspecified in clause 2 of the allocation letter dated 21.06.1995 and clause 3of the exemption letter dated 08-05-1999 on account of his failure to fulfillthe terms and conditions of exemption, is worked out as under:

Price of the plot as per District Collector's Valuation nearest to Rs. 10, 00, 000/-the date of transfer of exemption i.e. 08.11.2008.Dev. Charges paid on 10-01-1993 Rs. 23,053/-Mark up for the period 10.01.1993 to 08.11.2008 Rs. 63, 852/-Total amount of development charges + mark up @ 17.5% Rs. 86,906/-Cost of plot land (Total value - Dev. Charges paid) Rs. 9, 13, 094/-Add mark up for the period from the date of 1st transfer of Rs. 11, 83, 769/-exemption to the date of this order

Total amount Rs. 20, 96, 863/-

22. If the plot had been cancelled in terms of clause 17 of theexemption letter, the LOA would have sold it at its present market price. Inorder to give benefit of the difference of the present market price and theprice as per DC's valuation table to the applicant, the amount is worked outat rates of the DC's Valuation Table dated 29.06.2015 relevant on the dateof the present reference application. The value of the plot as per valuationtable comes to Rs. 16,50,000/-. By subtracting estimated developmentcharges of Rs. 1, 56, 915/- the amount is reduced to Rs. 14, 93, 085/-.(Development charges have been determined @ 9.51 % of the price i.e. atthe same ratio of the price of the plots and development charges as on08.11.2008.) Although the development charges paid against the plotconstitute only 9.51 % of the price of the plot as per DC's valuation table invogue on 08.11.2008 when the exemption was first time transferred by LOAto the vendor of the applicant and the price of land was 90.49%, yet itwould be fair if the applicant's liability is restricted to 50% of the price of theplot as per DC valuation table in vogue on the date of his filing of referenceapplication i.e. Rs.7, 46, 542/-.

23. As the amount worked out in para 22 is lower than the amountworked out in para 21, the applicant will be required to pay Rs.7, 46, 542/­for resolving the dispute and avoiding cancellation of the plot as envisagedin the clause 17 ibid. In case of any patent error or omission apparent fromthe face of the record, is subsequently discovered in the abovecomputation, the Commission may rectify the same on an application byeither party.

24. The LOA officers/officials who processed the case forexemption/prepared bogus documents, are prima facie responsible for thefraud. However, no evidence came before the Commission to identify andpin point the culprits, therefore, it will be for the LOA to decide if the loss of

~~.I~ 11

the balance amount of Rs.7, 45, 879/- is to be sustained by it or is to berecovered from the persons responsible for the fraud by specifically fixingresponsibility.

25. In view of the above discussed facts, the record perused andthe evidence examined, recommendations of the Commission are asunder:-

I. Notwithstanding the fact that under clause 17 ibid, the LOAis authorised to cancel exemption of plot No. 52, Block J/3,M.A. Johar Town, Lahore, it is recommended to resolve thedispute on payment to the LOA by the applicant an amountof Rs. 7, 46, 542/- as worked out above as price of the landof the plot, in lieu of the above discussed 17 Marla land.Within 90 days from the date of the payment of the abovedetermined amount, the LOA shall transfer proprietary rightof the plot in favour of the applicant.

II. The applicant however may approach the competent forumfor setting aside the order dated 28-02-1997 regardingmutation no. 6367. In case mutation no. 6367 is restored bythe competent authority the applicant will not be liable to payany amount to LOA and will be entitled to the exemption ofplot No. 52E Block J/3.

III. The pending application of transfer of plot filed by Mst.Kakub Waseem d/o Manzur Hussain will be decided by LOAin accordance with the orders of the Court.

IV. In case no appeal is filed by the applicant or by the LOAagainst this order and the applicant opt not to file applicationfor the review of mutation no. 6367, the LOA shall issue atthe option of the applicant one or two Challans for thepayment of the above amount in lump sum or in twoinstallments, within 30 days of the applicant request forissuance of Challan.

V. Subsequent to the payment of the above determined amountby the applicant, the title of the applicant or his successor ininterest at no stage, shall be called in question by the LOAand the cases for sanction of the building plan,commercialization, issuance of NOC, further transfer etc. inrespect of the above plot shall be processed by the LOA asper relevant rules/policy in vogue.

VI. In case the applicant fails to pay the above amount within sixmonths from the date of the issuance of the Challan(s), theLOA may, retrieve the plot but not

12

envisaged in the clause 17 of the Exemption Letter No.JT/NB-11I4031/13010 dated 08-05-1999 read with thetransfer letter No. JT/NB-11I4031dated 16-04-2010. Onretrieval of the plot LOA will refund the development chargesreceived with markup @ 17.5% from the date of the paymentof development charges to the LOA up to the date of theLOA's cheque for the refund amount payable to theapplicant. The amount so calculated shall be refunded withinone month of the retrieval of the plot.

VII. If the applicant has raised construction on the plot afterapproval of the building plan, he will be entitled, in case ofretrieval of plot by LOA, to receive compensation for theconstruction or any other development made by him asdetermined by the Chief Engineer, UO Wing, LOA. However,no compensation for the structure will be payable in case thebuilding plan was not approved by the competent authority.

VIII. OG, LOA should get an inquiry conducted that why thepossession of plot No. 437 and plot No. 258, Block-M wasnot taken over when possession of another plot No. 52-E,Block J/3 was being handed over in lieu of exemptionagainst Khasra number 1333115 and how the papers relatedto allocation and handing over of possession of plot No. 258Block-M were removed from the plot file and bogus papersregarding Plot 52-E Block J/3 were placed in the plot file.

(Javaid Akht r)Member, LOAC

Announced

07.04.2016

13