BEFORE LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION,LAHORE

PRESENT:

Mr. Javaid Akhtar, Chairman.Mr. Muhammad Yousaf, Member.

Reference No. 44/2017

Mr. Muhammad Nazir slo Muhammad Shafi House No. 79-A, Ahmed YarBlock Mustafa Town Wahdat Road Lahore

VS.

1. Lahore Development Authority through Director General, 467/0-11, MainBoulevard, M.A. Johar Town, Lahore.

2. Director, Lands Development-III, 467/0-11, Main Boulevard, M.A. JoharTown, Lahore.

ORDER

Mr. Muhammad Nazir slo Muhammad Shafi submitted an application atone window on 22-04-2015 vide receipt No. 2138417 for filing of referenceto the LOACommission. The LOAAuthorized Officer under sub-section (4)of section 32 of the LOA (Amendment) Act, 2013 read with sub-rule (1) ofthe Rule 7 of the Lahore Development Authority Commission Rules, 2014,referred the case to the Commission which was received on 22-09-2016. Itwas entered in the Institution Register at S.No.44 of 2016. The Referenceremained pending due to incomplete commission and was taken up on 15-02-2017 on appointment of commission Chairman and Member. FileNo.MST-428 of plot No. 79-A, Ahmad Yar Block Mustafa Town Lahoreattached with the reference by the Estate Management Directorate-III(hereinafter referred to as plot file) was examined.Nazia Ali Civil Judge vide her order dated 01.03.2017 dismissed the civilsuit as withdrawn, filed by the applicant against LOA and others. The copyof the order was placed in reference file.

2. Notices were issued to the Applicant, the Director General LOA andDirector Land Development-III, Land Acquisition Collector, LOA andPatwari, Halqa Mauza Thokar Niaz Beg and other concerned witnesses.Statements of the Applicant Mr. Muhammad Nazir, witnesses Mr.

1

Muhammad Burhan Faisal, Mr. Mohammad Khalil Ahmed, Mr. MuhammadAzhar Shaheen and Zulifqar Ali were recorded on oath. Attendance of Mst.Naz Ishfaq, the original exemptee could not be secured as she hasreportedly moved from the address given in her CNIC. Record of Patwariand LAC branch of LOA was consulted. The documents produced by theApplicant, Patwari Halqa, Thokar Niaz Beg and LAC were examined andphoto copies thereof placed on the reference file.

3. LOA in its reference has contended that;

"As per available record, the plot no. 79-A, Ahmad Yar Block MustafaTown Scheme was exempted to Mst. Naz Ishfaq wlo Muhammad Ishfaqin lieu of land measuring 1-Kanal 10-Marla falling in Khasra No. 7069/2Jadeed (Old Khasra No. 5055), Mouza Niaz Baig. Then plot transferredin the name of Mr. Muhammad Azhar Shaheen slo jan Muhammad videletter No. MST-428/1048 dated 04.08.2005. After that plot transferred inthe name of Mr. Muhammad Jarneel Ahmed Sio Muhammad SiddiqueTahir vide letter dated 15.10.2008. Then plot transferred in the name ofMr. Muhammad Nazir vide letter No. 1380855 dated 24.12.2010. Afterthat record of Mustafa Town was sealed and a Scrutiny Committee wasconstituted by the order of Director General, LOAvide letter No. LDAlADG(HQ)/84 dated 22.05.2012 to scrutinize the record of Mustafa TownScheme.A robkar was sent to Additional District Collector (Consolidation)Niaz Baig Lahore by the LAC, LOA vide No. LAC/655 dated 29.09.2012for verification of ownership of Mst. Naz Ishfaqwlo Muhammad Ishfaq. Areport was received from the office of Additional District Collector(Consolidation) Niaz Baig Lahore that according to record Mst. Naz Ishfaqwlo Muhammad Ishfaq is not owner of land measuring 1K-1OMfalling inKhasra No. 7069 Jadeed (5055 old Khasra) against which she obtainedexemption of plot No. 79-A Ahmad Yar Block Mustafa Town Scheme.Therefore, a Show Cause Notice was issued in the name of transfereeand exemptee vide No. LDAlDLD-III/MST/391/8473 dated 27.05.2013with direction to exemptee and transferee to submit their reply but theyfailed to do so. Therefore, the plot was cancelled from the name of theoriginal exemptee as well as from the name of the plaintiffs videcancellation letter No. LDAlDLD-11I/8763dated 18.06.2013.

4. LOA after examining reports from different Directorates made thefollowing observation which are as under:-

1. The LAC branch reported at para No. 148/N to 152/N, that accordingto para 36, 37, 38 and 39/N exemption has been granted throughnegotiation but no revenue document as such copy of mutation, parchakhatooni are available In the file. However, a copy of sale deedLt. 2 J~~~.7Pn-

___:_;;:-----~:>_ I ~ ...'Vi I,}

available at page 5-C of the file shows that name of previous ownerMr. Barkat Ali Slo Shahab Din from whom the exemptee Mst. NazIshfaque Wlo Muhammad Ishfaque purchased land measuring 01K -10M falling under Khasra No. 5055. It was reported that Mst. NazIshfaq is not awardee of the said land. However, as per Award Sr. No.54 previous owner Mr. Barkat Ali SIO Shahab Din is awarded owner inKh. No. 5055.

2. The concerned Qanoongo reported at 184-N that according toverification from Revenue Office Mst. Naz Ishfaq is not owner of land.

3. The report from Directorate of Revenue is available at para 189/N to196/N in which all the amounts deposited against plot have beenverified.

4. The Estate branch reported at para 224/N whereby possession of plotin question was handed over to Mst. Naz Ishfaque wlo MuhammadIshfaque in pursuance of letter No. MST/428/963 dated 28.10.2009 butwas later on cancelled on 12.07.2013 in pursuance of letter No.LDAlDLD-1I1/8763dated 18.06.2013. Estate Branch further reported atPara 225/N that double storey house has been constructed over plotNo. 79-A Block Ahmad Yaar Mustafa Town Scheme.

5. The Town PlanningWing reported at para No. 236/N, that building planwas sanctioned on 07.07.2008 but the same was cancelled on01.08.2013 in pursuance of cancellation letter No. LDAlDLD-1I1/8763dated 18.06.2013.

6. Applicant has submitted paid receipts of property tax against the saidproperty transfer letter, sanction plan, possession order, paid receiptof CVT, Pay order Azhar Shaheen, Paid receipts of Transfer fee andother LOA dues, Paid Utility Bills, Agreement to Sell and Certifiedcopies of Sale deed in favour of Exemptee.

a. Barkat Ali is no more owner of land in said khasra and has soldhis entire holding to many persons as indicated by AssistantCommissioner Raiwind vide his report dated 29.09.2012.

b. He has not sold land to Mst. Naz Ishfaq.c. Superimpose of old and new Khasra is available at the end of the

file.d. A file bearing No. MST/42111 (N) was constructed in the name of

Barkat Ali which has already been cancelled vide cancellationletter No. 5373 dated 17.10.2012.

5. The Applicant Mr. Nazir slo Muhammad Shafi stated on oath that hebought the plot from Muhammad Jamil slo Muhammad Sddique Tahir for asum of Rs.65, 000, 001- on 25-10-2010. He paid an advance of Rs.30,50,0001- which included Rs.9, 50, 0001- cash and a pay order bearing No.255710 for Rs.21, 00, 0001- of UBL, Hanjarwal Road Branch. He did not

3

I

obtain receipt of Rs.9, 50, 000/- because this amount was mentioned in theundertakingwritten on the stamp paper. The balance amount of RS.30,000,00/- was paid vide UBL Hanjarwal, pay order No. 0255791 for RS.19,000,00/- and No. 8493803 for Rs.11, 000, 00/- for which he did not keep a receipt.Another Rs.5, 000, 00/- was paid in cash at the time of transfer, in presenceof the Property Dealer and LOA Transfer Officer. He produced a receiptrendered by Mr. Jamil at the back of the stamp paper for the entire amountof Rs. 65, 000, 00/- paid on 23-12-2010 (original examined and copy placedon file at (Mark -I). Receipt of advance payment and sale agreement deedwere signed separately. He had obtained all relevant documents from theSeller Mr. Jamil Ahmed, copies of which have been deposited and placed onthe plot file. He didn't meet the Exemptee, Mst. Naz Ishfaq since there wasno need of that. He did check the plot file in LOA office, however he neitherchecked revenue record, nor met the concerned revenue staff. He didn'tknow that the plot was of exemption category. He also informed that Mr.Jamil Ahmed was a retired bank officer and died in 2012. He acknowledgedsigning of Transfer Letter at page/217 and Statement on Oath at page/223.He confirmed that he did read the text of the Statement on Oath but did notknow its implications. He also claimed that he did not read the ExemptionLetter.

6. Mr. Muhammad Burhan Faisal son of Mohammed Jamil stated on oaththat his father Mr. Mohammed Jamil Ahmed had died on April 10, 2012. Heproduced original CNIC of his father (copy placed on the reference file). Heinformed that he knew about the transfer of the plot which his father hadpurchased, in 2008 from Mr Shaheen, who was an engineer in a company.After building a house on the plot they sold it to Mr. Nazir. The amount waspaid through a pay order. He recognized and confirmed the signature of hisfather on the Agreement to Sell and affidavit at page 219/C as witness.

7. Mr. Mohammad Khalil Ahmed s/o Mohammed Saeed resident of FlatNo.3, Extension Education Town Tabib Plaza Wahdat Road Lahore statedthat he helped the applicant Mohammad Nazir in purchase of plot. He usedto work as property dealer and the instant plot deal was finalized for Rs.65,00, 000/-. He along with Muhammad Nazir and Mohammed Jamil visited theLOAOneWindow Office where the plot file was showed to the buyer and theseller which was in order. He claimed he did not meet Mst. Naz Ishfaq or Mr.Azhar Shaheem. About the availability of house for sale he came to knowfrom a display board in front of the house. He confirmed his signatures onAgreements for sale at Mark I and Mark II. He also claimed that at the timeof purchase and sale he only checked the transfer letter of LOA.

8. Mr. Mohammed Azhar Shaheen s/o Jan Mohammed resident of AhmedYar Block, House No. 308 Mustafa Town Wahdat Road Lahore stated on

t!~6g - '],<)/7

4

oath that he had sold plot No. 79-A Ahmad Yar Block Mustafa Town toMuhammad Jarnil. He sold the plot for Rs.32, 00, 000/- and after deductionof commission he got net Rs.31, 70, 000/-. Mr. Nasrullah property dealer hadgot the deal done and also got all the papers checked. He further told thathe himself had bought this plot from Sadiq Property Dealer for RS.26,00,000/- but it cost him RS.28, 00, 000/- including dealer's commission etc.

9. Mr. Zulifqar Ali s/o Asghar Ali rio House No. 18-B, Street No, 28 MohallahIslamia Colony Wandala Road, Shahdarah Lahore stated on oath that hehad purchased the GPA from Mst. Naz Ishfaq on payment of Rs.2, 50, 000/­for getting exemption of plot. But he could not manage it because LOA staffwas non cooperative. He therefore sold both the registered sale deeds to Mr.Salim Gilani for Rs.7, 50, 000/-, a property dealer, who was confident to getthe exemption from LOA. Thereafter he never met Mr. Salim Gillani. Sincethey had purchased the land he only checked registered sale deed and notthe revenue record. They purchased two sale deeds for Rs.2, 50, 000/- fromMst. Naz Ishfaq who initially refused to give them GPA despite havingreceived some payment, which he got it through an order of the Civil Court.

10. The perusal of Revenue Record and Plot file of, the plot no. 79-A,shows that apparently Mst. Naz Ishfaq w/o Muhammad Ishfaq movedapplication for exemption on 27-02-1978 attaching with it a copy of sale deedand paid challan form for RS.6250/- on account of development charges(paqe-t). This payment was made through an SOR of UBL deposited withHBL. No action was taken on this application for six years. On 06.02.1984applicant was asked to provide Aks Shajra, Copy of Attested Mutation, Copyof Khatoni, Copy of Fard and Copy of Award. Five reminders were sent tohim but no response was given by Naz Ishfaq so the case remained pending.After lapse of another ten years in 1994 vide para 24-26/N LAC branch onthe report of Patwari and Qanoongo reported that Naz Ishfaq has been foundowner of 1K-1OM as per available record and that OG LOA had approvednegotiation through an order dated 29-01-1991 (copy of the OG order notavailable on file). The Negotiation Agreement between LOA and Mst. NazIshfaq was signed on 29-08-1994 (pages 29-33).The Exemption Branchrecommended two plots of measuring 105 sq. m. & 72 sq. m. vide para 43-49/N. The Allocation Committee in its meeting on 21.12.1995 approvedallocation of two plots No. 79/A Block Ahmed Yar and 276 Block ShahbazMustafa Town. Allocation letter for plot 79-A Block Ahmed Yar was issuedon 08-01-1996 (page/35). But Exemption Letter was issued in the name ofMst. Ishfaq Naz after another eight years i.e. on 29-09-2004 (P/45). This isa unique case which took 26 years to mature.

11. The perusal of Revenue Record reveals that Khasra No.7069, KhataNo.2125 land measuring 05K-04M was allotted to Barkat s/o Shahab Din

5

during consolidation. Later under the orders of Additional DeputyCommissioner Consolidation vide mutation no. 14053 on 08.08.1980 theland measuring 03k-15M was transferred to Pir Muhammad S/o Waris.Whereas Barkat slo Shahab Din had already transferred land measuring00K-18M to Zubaida Begum dlo Muhammad Mudasar vide mutation no.5511 dated 25.05.1979, land measuring 00K-04M to Munawar Begum videmutation No. 15189 and land measuring 00K-04M to Muhammad Siddiqueslo Ahmad Din. The land measuring 00K-03M land remained with Barkatslo Shahab Din. Barkat S/o Shahab Din sold his land measuring 01K-02Marla to Zubaida Begum and Munawar Begum through sale deedsregistered on 15.12.1977 and 00K-04M to Muhammad Siddiq S/o AhmadDin vide sale deeds registered on 20.11.2000. As such he sold excess landbecause he has already sold land to Naz Ishfaq. The sale deed was notincorporated in the Land Revenue Record either due to ignorance or it wasdifficult to incorporate unless an order was passed by a competent court. Therequired revenue documents i.e. Fard Jamabandi, Mutation & Khatooni,Akkas Shajra, were never provided even after repeated letters to Naz Ishfaq.Neither a copy of Fard was attached with the application to prove herownership. Since land allegedly purchased by Naz Ishfaq was notincorporated in the land revenue record she was not owner of the land inkhasra no. 7069 when exemption was granted to her. Further her name alsodid not appear in the Award of Mustafa Town notified on 18.07.1977 againstKhasra No. 5055.

12. Despite the above irregularitieslfraud from the evidence and record itis established that the applicant, Mr. Muhammad Nazir purchased the plotfor an amount of Rs.65,00,0001- from Muhammad Jamil slo MuhammadSiddique on 25-10-2010 after six years of exemption. He produced thereceipts of the all the payments. Muhammad Jamil's son Mr. MuhammadBurhan Faisal who was also a witness to sale confirmed sale of plot No. 79-A along with a house built thereon by his father. Although Zulfiqar Ali deniedthat he had anything to do with the exemption which according to him wasgot processed by Mr. Saleem Gillani or his successor but power of Attorneywas executed in his name by Mst. Ishfaq Naz and he transferred the plot toMr. Azhar Shaheen the first transferee and transfer application bear hissignature unless proved otherwise.

13. Although LOA has alleged that the original exemptee, Mst. Naz Ishfaqis not ownerl awardee of her claimed land one kanal ten Marla (Khasra No.7069/2) but has not challenged the exemption order No.LDAIMST/4281A1820 dated 29-09-2004 nor the claim of the applicantMuhammad Nazir as a bonafide purchaser. He purchased the plot along withhouse on it for RS,65,00,0001- from Muhammad Jamil and produced proof ofall payments duly, verified by witnesses and acknowledged by the seller

fl- 6

c:.. J.-'>- p&...- uf7--------------------------------

Muhammad Jamil's son in their statements. No fraud has been allegedagainst the Applicant at any stage. Therefore, the Commission, in view ofsub section (4) of section 32 of the LOA (Amendments) Act, 2013 read withsub-section (5) of Section 32 of the Act (ibid) has to consider the presentreference to resolve the dispute. The above mentioned provisions of the Actare reproduced below:-

a. "(4) The Authority or any officer so authorized by the Authority, onits own motion or on the application of any person, may refer anymatter to the Commission for consideration, resolution and decisionif a prima facie case is made out."

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

I. bona fide purchase for value owing to irregular or fraudulenttransaction in respect of property, the extent of legality orillegality of the transaction, apportionment of responsibility inirregular or fraudulent transaction and translation of thisresponsibility into monetary terms and recommendation ofsuch conditions, fines, rate or fix price, retrieval of propertyand demolition as deemed appropriate according to thenature of each case."

14. Exemption of the plot was transferred to the applicant by LOA on thesame terms and conditions on which it was held by the exemptee. Relevantportion of transfer letter No. MST-428/1380865 dated 24-12-2010 isreproduced below:

'The title of the plot cited above is here by transferred to theBuyer below in view of verification of record on the same termsand conditions ?S it was held by Ms. Naz Ishfaq, (the originalexemptee)." (Page 261/C)

15. The applicant accepted the terms and conditions of the transfer. Hehimself signed the endorsement on the transfer application dated Nil (page217/C) of plot file No.MST-428 which reads;

"I endorse the above application and if the property is transferred tome, I as successor in interest or (assignee) shall be subject to all theconditions and terms contained in the Agreement IExemption letterbetween the transferor and the Lahore Department Authority."

16. In the affidavit at page 223/C of plot file No. MST- 428 filed with thetransfer set, the applicant undertook to abide by the terms and conditions ofthe exemption of the said plot between the original exemptee and LOA and

to comply with all orders and directions and instructions etc. in force or issuedfrom time to time by the LOA. Therefore, whatever rights have come to vestin the applicant, those did not constitute full and absolute title in the plot. Theapplicant was bound to fulfill the conditions laid down in the exemption letterNo. LOAIMST/428/Al820 dated 29-09-2004 (page 45/C) issued to theexemptee. The applicant, therefore, was well aware of the fact that hispurchase was subject to the incident of those conditions, contained in theexemption letter issued by the Authority. The LOA had a right to cancel theallocation/exemption of plot under clause 17 of the Exemption Letter whichreads;

"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 & 0are to be taken up at any stage.)

17. Although the exemption was transferred by LOA i.e. the real ownerof the plot, yet the fact remains that the transfer was made conditionally andthe applicant accepted those conditions without any objection. Everypurchaser of exemption rights is supposed to have knowledge that thetransaction of purchase is subject to those conditions which are contained inthe agreement for exemption or in the exemption letter. At this stage thecontention of the applicant that hewas not aware of the terms and conditionscannot be accepted. This being so, the vendee despite being innocent buyercan't raise the plea of protection on the principle of section 41 of the Transferof Property Act, 1882 which relates to the transfer of property by anostensible owner. In the present case it was a conditional sale/transfer andthe applicant is bound to fulfill the conditions accepted by him at the time oftransfer of exemption in his favour. Moreover, applicant's rights beingvendeeof exemption rights can't exceed the rights vested in the vendor who was notfull owner of the plot and didn't have proprietary rights of the plot. Therefore,for acquiring proprietary rights the applicant is subject to the conditions of thesale as per terms and conditions of exemption.

18. Land for Mustafa Town Scheme was acquired on the basis ofexemptionwhich implied that 30% of the land of owners was exempted fromcompulsory acquisition and they, on certain specific terms and conditions,were allocated developed plot(s) equal to their right of exemption i.e. 30% oftheir total holding acquired/surrendered. Title of the exempted plot is,however, transferred on fulfillment of certain terms and conditions which arepart of exemption. Therefore, the exemptee is not a full owner and exemptionletter doesn't constitute absolute title in the plot. The title of the plot remainsvested in the LOA till exchange deed is executed. The plot No, 79-A Ahmed

,;r

0.\ ~- \\ rv r-. r "'J-o~' V"-'. !"2-<'"_.

I

Yar Block Mustafa Town was exempted against the share of land of KhasraNo. 7069/2 Jadeed (5055 old) Mauza Niaz Beg, falling in Mustafa TownScheme through an exemption letter. The applicant was transferredexemption rights subject to the terms and conditions contained in theagreement /exemption letter. He was bound to transfer the land againstwhich the exemption was granted, in favour of LOA by executing anexchange deed after completion of building as per clause 16 of theexemption letter No. LOAIMST/428/Al820 dated 29-09-2004 (page 45/C)which reads;

"That you shall be required to execute an Exchange Deed, after thecompletion of the building, in accordance with the sanctioned plan.All expenditures i.e. cost of stamps, Registration fee and other fees,taxes for the execution of this deed shall be borne by you."

19. The defect in the ownership of the original Exemptee's land or plea offraud or irregularities committed by the original Exemptee, the LOA or theRevenue Department functionaries does not absolve the applicant fromabiding by the terms and conditions of the transfer of exemption accepted byhim, even if the entire transaction and proceedings before transfer ofexemption are proved to be fraudulent. He cannot raise the plea of protectionon the principle of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In casehe fulfills the terms and conditions accepted by him at the time of transfer ofexemption, LOA shall be bound to transfer to him the proprietary rights,notwithstanding the fraud or collusion committed by the original exemptee,or the LOA officers/officials, if any, to which the applicant was not a party.The original exemptee paid the development charges and other dues whichas admitted by LOA have been duly verified vide para-3 of the Reference.The applicant paid transfer fee but the price of the plot was not paid by himor his predecessors to the LOA and instead the applicant took upon himselfto transfer land to LOA by execution of an exchange deed. The vendor hasnot paid any price of the land of plot nor transferred land to the LOA,therefore, the price paid by the applicant to the vendor does not include theprice of the land which was to be transferred to LOA in exchange of thesubject plot. The applicant is liable either to transfer the land, as perexemption letter, to the LOA or alternatively in order to resolve the dispute,pay the price of the land of the plot measuring 146.76 SQM for transfer oftitle of the plot in his favour.

20. In view of the position as has been noticed by the Commission from theRevenue record, the applicant cannot now get the required land transferredto the LOA which was never owned by the original exemptee, therefore, hehas to acquire proprietary rights on payment of the price of the plot (minusdevelopment charges already paid ). In case the plot had been still in the

,;I"

9 0w·I)-c/?].D(}"_1i~"I,

:2"1,-- oK -_'?i:>;__,_L""f L-2 _

name of the original exemptee, Mst.Naz Ishfaq who was not owner of herclaimed land, the plot would have been certainly cancelled and she couldhave no right for its regularization. But when the plot has been transferred toMr. Muhammad Nazir on 24-12-2010 he has become entitled to retain theplot under these proceedings on establishing that he is a bona fidepurchaser. The right of exemption i.e. to get the title of the plot by transferringownership of above mentioned land, was conferred by the LOA when theLOA transferred exemption to the applicant on receipt of transfer fee.Therefore, price of the plot as on its first transfer by the exemptee on 04-08-2005 as per DC's Valuation Table along with charges for delayed payment,should be charged from him in order to resolve the dispute as envisaged insub section (4) of section 32 of the LOA (Amendments) Act, 2013 whichreads:

"(4) The Authority or any officer so authorized by the Authority, onits own motion or on the application of any person, may refer anymatter to the Commission for consideration, resolution and decisionif a prima facie case is made out".

21. According to the DC's valuation table notified for 06.03.2004 whichwas prevalent on the date of 1st. transfer i.e. 04-08-2005, the price per Marlain MustafaTown, was Rs.65,OOO/-perMarla. Thus price of 146.76 sq.m. plotcomes to Rs.4,54,257- at the time of 1st. transfer. Applicant's predecessorpaid development charges rs.6250/- on 15-04-78 and Rs28972/- on 23-09-2004 as development charges for plot No. 79-A (as verified by LOA). Sui gascharges paid are not the part of the price of the plot and similarly the amountspaid subsequently for building period extensions or any additional amountrecovered on account of delayed payments cannot be considered as part ofthe cost of the plot. It was the responsibility of the applicant as discussedabove, to get transferred required land to the LOAand it is the applicant whohad failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the exemption, therefore,he is liable to pay mark up at the rate of 17.5% per annum for delayedpayment as specified in clause 2 of the allocation letter dated 08-01-1996and clause 3 of the exemption letter dated 29-09-2004. On account of hisfailure to fulfill the terms and conditions of exemption, he will have to pay tothe LOAan amount of Rs.10,39,311/-, worked out as below:

S.No. Description Amount--1) Price of the plot measuring 146.76 sq.m.

as per District Collector's Valuationnearest to the date of 1st.transfer of Rs.4,54,257/-exemption i.e. 04-08-2005

2) Dev. Charges paid on 15-04-78

Dev. Charges paid on 23-09-2004

Cost of plot land (Total value - Dev.Charges paid)

Add mark up for the period from the dateof 1st. transfer ofexemption to the date of filing ofapplication (22-04-2015)

Rs.6,2501-

3) Mark up on Dev. Charges amounting toRs.6,2501- for the period From 15-04-78to 04-08-2005 (1st. Transfer) Rs.29,885/-

Rs.28972/-

Rs.4376/-

Rs.69,483/-

Rs.3,84,774/-

Rs.6,54,537/-

Rs.10,39,311/-

In case of any patent error or omission apparent from the face of therecord, is subsequently discovered in the above computation, theCommission may rectify the same on an application by either party.

22. From the available record and the evidence produced before theCommission it appears that;

5) Mark up on Dev Charges amounting toRs.28972/-for the period

From 23-09-2004 to 04-08-2005

6) Total Development charges with markup

9) Total amount to be paid by the applicant toresolve the dispute

4)

7)

8)

I. The applicant was not a party to the fraud committed by Mr.Zulifqar Ali s/o Asghar Ali and Mst. Naz Ishfaq who managedexemption fraudulently just on a sale deed, in connivance of LOAstaff as discussed in para-11 above.

II. He purchased the plot in good faith after a reasonable inquiryconducted by him from 2nd Transferee and LOA.

III. At the time of his purchase there was nothing on the record ofthe LOA to indicate any suspicious circumstances calling forinquiry as plot had been transferred twice before without anyobjection. The fraud came to lime light after record of MustafaTown was scrutinized in 2012.

IV. The applicant had paid market price, Rs.65,00,000/- to thevendor for transfer of exemption rights and possession of the plotfor which he produced oral as well as documentary evidence.

Therefore, he is held to be a bona fide purchaser of the rights of exemptiongranted by LOA to the original exemptee.

23. In view of the above discussed facts, the record and the evidenceexamined, recommendations of the Commission are as under:-

i. Notwithstanding the fact that under clause 17 ibid, the LOA isauthorized to cancel exemption of plot No.79, Ahmad Yar Block,Mustafa Town, Lahore, it is recommended to resolve the dispute thaton payment to the LOA by the applicant an amount of Rs.Rs.10,39,311/- asworked out above as price of the land of the plot, theapplicant will be allowed to retain the plot and proprietary right of theplot will be transferred in favour of the applicant.

II. In case no appeal is filed by the applicant or by the LOA against thisorder, the LOA shall issue, within 30 days after the expiry of the timeprescribed for the appeal or from the date of the application made bythe applicant, whichever is earlier, one or two Challans at the option ofthe applicant for the payment of the above amount in lump sum or intwo quarterly installments within six months.

III. Subsequent to the payment of the above determined amount by theapplicant or after final orders of the court of competent jurisdiction incase of appeal, the title of the applicant or his successor in interest atno stage, shall be called in question by the LOA and the cases forsanction of the building plan, commercialization, issuance of NOC,further transfer etc. if any in respect of the above plot shall beprocessed by the LOA as per relevant rules/policy in vogue.

iv. In case the applicant fails to pay the above amount within six monthsfrom the date of the issuance of the Challan(s), the LOA may, retrievethe plot but not without compensation as envisaged in the clause 17 ofthe Exemption Letter read with the transfer. On retrieval of the plot LOAwill refund the development charges received with markup @ 17.5%from the date of the payment of development charges to the LOA up tothe date of the LOA's cheque for the refund amount payable to theapplicant. The amount so calculated shall be refunded within onemonth of the retrieval of the plot.

v. If the applicant has raised construction on the plot after approval of thebuilding plan, he will be entitled, in case of retrieval of plot by LOA, toreceive compensation for the construction or any other developmentmade by him as determined 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.

VI. OG LOA shall conduct an enquiry against the LOA staff as well asprivate persons involved in getting the exemption in the name of Mst.Naz Ishfaq fraudulently without valid owner ship documents taking theplea of then OG LOA orders, which are not available on the file. Shewas not owner of the land as per Land Revenue record but LAC officedid not point out this fact while recommending the case for exemptionin 1994.

'VINI~-'J,. >__0t-1-D 'J(Muhammad Yousaf)

Member, LOAC

(Ja .

Chairman, LOAC

Announced

23.08.2017

13