BEFORE 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 Yar Block Wahdat Road Lahore

VS.

1. Lahore Development Authority through Director General, 467/0-11, Main Boulevard, M.A. , Lahore. 2. Director, Lands Development-III, 467/0-11, Main Boulevard, M.A. Johar Town, Lahore.

ORDER

Mr. Muhammad Nazir slo Muhammad Shafi submitted an application at one window on 22-04-2015 vide receipt No. 2138417 for filing of reference to the LOA Commission. The LOA Authorized Officer under sub-section (4) of section 32 of the LOA (Amendment) Act, 2013 read with sub-rule (1) of the Rule 7 of the Lahore Development Authority Commission Rules, 2014, referred the case to the Commission which was received on 22-09-2016. It was entered in the Institution Register at S.No.44 of 2016. The Reference remained pending due to incomplete commission and was taken up on 15- 02-2017 on appointment of commission Chairman and Member. File No.MST-428 of plot No. 79-A, Ahmad Yar Block Mustafa Town Lahore attached 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 Nazia Ali Civil Judge vide her order dated 01.03.2017 dismissed the civil suit as withdrawn, filed by the applicant against LOA and others. The copy of the order was placed in reference file.

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

1 Muhammad Burhan Faisal, Mr. Mohammad Khalil Ahmed, Mr. Muhammad Azhar Shaheen and Zulifqar Ali were recorded on oath. Attendance of Mst. Naz Ishfaq, the original exemptee could not be secured as she has reportedly moved from the address given in her CNIC. Record of Patwari and LAC branch of LOA was consulted. The documents produced by the Applicant, Patwari Halqa, Thokar Niaz Beg and LAC were examined and photo 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 Mustafa Town Scheme was exempted to Mst. Naz Ishfaq wlo Muhammad Ishfaq in lieu of land measuring 1-Kanal 10-Marla falling in Khasra No. 7069/2 Jadeed (Old Khasra No. 5055), Mouza Niaz Baig. Then plot transferred in the name of Mr. Muhammad Azhar Shaheen slo jan Muhammad vide letter No. MST-428/1048 dated 04.08.2005. After that plot transferred in the name of Mr. Muhammad Jarneel Ahmed Sio Muhammad Siddique Tahir vide letter dated 15.10.2008. Then plot transferred in the name of Mr. Muhammad Nazir vide letter No. 1380855 dated 24.12.2010. After that record of Mustafa Town was sealed and a Scrutiny Committee was constituted by the order of Director General, LOAvide letter No. LDAlADG (HQ)/84 dated 22.05.2012 to scrutinize the record of Mustafa Town Scheme. A robkar was sent to Additional District Collector (Consolidation) Niaz Baig Lahore by the LAC, LOA vide No. LAC/655 dated 29.09.2012 for verification of ownership of Mst. Naz Ishfaq wlo Muhammad Ishfaq. A report was received from the office of Additional District Collector (Consolidation) Niaz Baig Lahore that according to record Mst. Naz Ishfaq wlo Muhammad Ishfaq is not owner of land measuring 1K-1OMfalling in Khasra No. 7069 Jadeed (5055 old Khasra) against which she obtained exemption of plot No. 79-A Ahmad Yar Block Mustafa Town Scheme. Therefore, a Show Cause Notice was issued in the name of transferee and exemptee vide No. LDAlDLD-III/MST/391/8473 dated 27.05.2013 with direction to exemptee and transferee to submit their reply but they failed to do so. Therefore, the plot was cancelled from the name of the original exemptee as well as from the name of the plaintiffs vide cancellation letter No. LDAlDLD-11I/8763dated 18.06.2013. 4. LOA after examining reports from different Directorates made the following observation which are as under:- 1. The LAC branch reported at para No. 148/N to 152/N, that according to para 36, 37, 38 and 39/N exemption has been granted through negotiation but no revenue document as such copy of mutation, parcha khatooni are available In the file. However, a copy of sale deed

Lt. 2 J~~~.7Pn- ___:_;;:----- ~:>_ I ~ ...'Vi I,} available at page 5-C of the file shows that name of previous owner Mr. Barkat Ali Slo Shahab Din from whom the exemptee Mst. Naz Ishfaque Wlo Muhammad Ishfaque purchased land measuring 01K - 10M falling under Khasra No. 5055. It was reported that Mst. Naz Ishfaq 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 in Kh. No. 5055. 2. The concerned Qanoongo reported at 184-N that according to verification from Revenue Office Mst. Naz Ishfaq is not owner of land. 3. The report from Directorate of Revenue is available at para 189/N to 196/N in which all the amounts deposited against plot have been verified. 4. The Estate branch reported at para 224/N whereby possession of plot in question was handed over to Mst. Naz Ishfaque wlo Muhammad Ishfaque in pursuance of letter No. MST/428/963 dated 28.10.2009 but was later on cancelled on 12.07.2013 in pursuance of letter No. LDAlDLD-1I1/8763dated 18.06.2013. Estate Branch further reported at Para 225/N that double storey house has been constructed over plot No. 79-A Block Ahmad Yaar Mustafa Town Scheme. 5. The Town Planning Wing reported at para No. 236/N, that building plan was sanctioned on 07.07.2008 but the same was cancelled on 01.08.2013 in pursuance of cancellation letter No. LDAlDLD-1I1/8763 dated 18.06.2013. 6. Applicant has submitted paid receipts of property tax against the said property transfer letter, sanction plan, possession order, paid receipt of CVT, Pay order Azhar Shaheen, Paid receipts of Transfer fee and other LOA dues, Paid Utility Bills, Agreement to Sell and Certified copies of Sale deed in favour of Exemptee. a. Barkat Ali is no more owner of land in said khasra and has sold his entire holding to many persons as indicated by Assistant Commissioner 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 cancellation letter No. 5373 dated 17.10.2012. 5. The Applicant Mr. Nazir slo Muhammad Shafi stated on oath that he bought the plot from Muhammad Jamil slo Muhammad Sddique Tahir for a sum 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 obtain receipt of Rs.9, 50, 000/- because this amount was mentioned in the undertaking written 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 presence of the Property Dealer and LOA Transfer Officer. He produced a receipt rendered by Mr. Jamil at the back of the stamp paper for the entire amount I of Rs. 65, 000, 00/- paid on 23-12-2010 (original examined and copy placed on file at (Mark -I). Receipt of advance payment and sale agreement deed were signed separately. He had obtained all relevant documents from the Seller Mr. Jamil Ahmed, copies of which have been deposited and placed on the plot file. He didn't meet the Exemptee, Mst. Naz Ishfaq since there was no need of that. He did check the plot file in LOA office, however he neither checked revenue record, nor met the concerned revenue staff. He didn't know that the plot was of exemption category. He also informed that Mr. Jamil Ahmed was a retired bank officer and died in 2012. He acknowledged signing 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 not know its implications. He also claimed that he did not read the Exemption Letter.

6. Mr. Muhammad Burhan Faisal son of Mohammed Jamil stated on oath that his father Mr. Mohammed Jamil Ahmed had died on April 10, 2012. He produced original CNIC of his father (copy placed on the reference file). He informed that he knew about the transfer of the plot which his father had purchased, 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 was paid through a pay order. He recognized and confirmed the signature of his father on the Agreement to Sell and affidavit at page 219/C as witness. 7. Mr. Mohammad Khalil Ahmed s/o Mohammed Saeed resident of Flat No.3, Extension Tabib Plaza Wahdat Road Lahore stated that he helped the applicant Mohammad Nazir in purchase of plot. He used to 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 the LOA One Window Office where the plot file was showed to the buyer and the seller 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 know from a display board in front of the house. He confirmed his signatures on Agreements for sale at Mark I and Mark II. He also claimed that at the time of purchase and sale he only checked the transfer letter of LOA. 8. Mr. Mohammed Azhar Shaheen s/o Jan Mohammed resident of Ahmed Yar Block, House No. 308 Mustafa Town Wahdat Road Lahore stated on t! 4 ~6g - '],<)/7 oath that he had sold plot No. 79-A Ahmad Yar Block Mustafa Town to Muhammad Jarnil. He sold the plot for Rs.32, 00, 000/- and after deduction of commission he got net Rs.31, 70, 000/-. Mr. Nasrullah property dealer had got the deal done and also got all the papers checked. He further told that he 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 Mohallah Islamia Colony Wandala Road, Shahdarah Lahore stated on oath that he had 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 staff was 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 get the exemption from LOA. Thereafter he never met Mr. Salim Gillani. Since they had purchased the land he only checked registered sale deed and not the revenue record. They purchased two sale deeds for Rs.2, 50, 000/- from Mst. Naz Ishfaq who initially refused to give them GPA despite having received 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 moved application for exemption on 27-02-1978 attaching with it a copy of sale deed and paid challan form for RS.6250/- on account of development charges (paqe-t). This payment was made through an SOR of UBL deposited with HBL. No action was taken on this application for six years. On 06.02.1984 applicant was asked to provide Aks Shajra, Copy of Attested Mutation, Copy of Khatoni, Copy of Fard and Copy of Award. Five reminders were sent to him 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 on the report of Patwari and Qanoongo reported that Naz Ishfaq has been found owner of 1K-1OM as per available record and that OG LOA had approved negotiation through an order dated 29-01-1991 (copy of the OG order not available on file). The Negotiation Agreement between LOA and Mst. Naz Ishfaq was signed on 29-08-1994 (pages 29-33).The Exemption Branch recommended 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 approved allocation of two plots No. 79/A Block Ahmed Yar and 276 Block Shahbaz Mustafa Town. Allocation letter for plot 79-A Block Ahmed Yar was issued on 08-01-1996 (page/35). But Exemption Letter was issued in the name of Mst. Ishfaq Naz after another eight years i.e. on 29-09-2004 (P/45). This is a unique case which took 26 years to mature. 11. The perusal of Revenue Record reveals that Khasra No.7069, Khata No.2125 land measuring 05K-04M was allotted to Barkat s/o Shahab Din

5 during consolidation. Later under the orders of Additional Deputy Commissioner Consolidation vide mutation no. 14053 on 08.08.1980 the land measuring 03k-15M was transferred to Pir Muhammad S/o Waris. Whereas Barkat slo Shahab Din had already transferred land measuring 00K-18M to Zubaida Begum dlo Muhammad Mudasar vide mutation no. 5511 dated 25.05.1979, land measuring 00K-04M to Munawar Begum vide mutation No. 15189 and land measuring 00K-04M to Muhammad Siddique slo Ahmad Din. The land measuring 00K-03M land remained with Barkat slo Shahab Din. Barkat S/o Shahab Din sold his land measuring 01K-02 Marla to Zubaida Begum and Munawar Begum through sale deeds registered on 15.12.1977 and 00K-04M to Muhammad Siddiq S/o Ahmad Din vide sale deeds registered on 20.11.2000. As such he sold excess land because he has already sold land to Naz Ishfaq. The sale deed was not incorporated in the Land Revenue Record either due to ignorance or it was difficult to incorporate unless an order was passed by a competent court. The required 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 her ownership. Since land allegedly purchased by Naz Ishfaq was not incorporated in the land revenue record she was not owner of the land in khasra no. 7069 when exemption was granted to her. Further her name also did not appear in the Award of Mustafa Town notified on 18.07.1977 against Khasra No. 5055.

12. Despite the above irregularitieslfraud from the evidence and record it is established that the applicant, Mr. Muhammad Nazir purchased the plot for an amount of Rs.65,00,0001- from Muhammad Jamil slo Muhammad Siddique on 25-10-2010 after six years of exemption. He produced the receipts of the all the payments. Muhammad Jamil's son Mr. Muhammad Burhan 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 denied that he had anything to do with the exemption which according to him was got processed by Mr. Saleem Gillani or his successor but power of Attorney was executed in his name by Mst. Ishfaq Naz and he transferred the plot to Mr. Azhar Shaheen the first transferee and transfer application bear his signature unless proved otherwise.

13. Although LOA has alleged that the original exemptee, Mst. Naz Ishfaq is 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 applicant Muhammad Nazir as a bonafide purchaser. He purchased the plot along with house on it for RS,65,00,0001- from Muhammad Jamil and produced proof of all 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 alleged against the Applicant at any stage. Therefore, the Commission, in view of sub section (4) of section 32 of the LOA (Amendments) Act, 2013 read with sub-section (5) of Section 32 of the Act (ibid) has to consider the present reference to resolve the dispute. The above mentioned provisions of the Act are reproduced below:- a. "(4) The Authority or any officer so authorized by the Authority, on its own motion or on the application of any person, may refer any matter to the Commission for consideration, resolution and decision if a prima facie case is made out."

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

I. bona fide purchase for value owing to irregular or fraudulent transaction in respect of property, the extent of legality or illegality of the transaction, apportionment of responsibility in irregular or fraudulent transaction and translation of this responsibility into monetary terms and recommendation of such conditions, fines, rate or fix price, retrieval of property and demolition as deemed appropriate according to the nature of each case."

14. Exemption of the plot was transferred to the applicant by LOA on the same terms and conditions on which it was held by the exemptee. Relevant portion of transfer letter No. MST-428/1380865 dated 24-12-2010 is reproduced below: 'The title of the plot cited above is here by transferred to the Buyer below in view of verification of record on the same terms and conditions ?S it was held by Ms. Naz Ishfaq, (the original exemptee)." (Page 261/C)

15. The applicant accepted the terms and conditions of the transfer. He himself signed the endorsement on the transfer application dated Nil (page 217/C) of plot file No.MST-428 which reads; "I endorse the above application and if the property is transferred to me, I as successor in interest or (assignee) shall be subject to all the conditions and terms contained in the Agreement IExemption letter between the transferor and the Lahore Department Authority."

16. In the affidavit at page 223/C of plot file No. MST- 428 filed with the transfer set, the applicant undertook to abide by the terms and conditions of the 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 issued from time to time by the LOA. Therefore, whatever rights have come to vest in the applicant, those did not constitute full and absolute title in the plot. The applicant was bound to fulfill the conditions laid down in the exemption letter No. LOAIMST/428/Al820 dated 29-09-2004 (page 45/C) issued to the exemptee. The applicant, therefore, was well aware of the fact that his purchase was subject to the incident of those conditions, contained in the exemption letter issued by the Authority. The LOA had a right to cancel the allocation/exemption of plot under clause 17 of the Exemption Letter which reads; "That if at any stage your title is proved to be defective, the exemption of the plot shall stand automatically withdrawn and LOA will be entitled to take over the land along with structure standing thereon without payment of any damages or compensation. (E & 0 are to be taken up at any stage.)

17. Although the exemption was transferred by LOA i.e. the real owner of the plot, yet the fact remains that the transfer was made conditionally and the applicant accepted those conditions without any objection. Every purchaser of exemption rights is supposed to have knowledge that the transaction of purchase is subject to those conditions which are contained in the agreement for exemption or in the exemption letter. At this stage the contention of the applicant that he was not aware of the terms and conditions cannot be accepted. This being so, the vendee despite being innocent buyer can't raise the plea of protection on the principle of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which relates to the transfer of property by an ostensible owner. In the present case it was a conditional sale/transfer and the applicant is bound to fulfill the conditions accepted by him at the time of transfer of exemption in his favour. Moreover, applicant's rights being vendee of exemption rights can't exceed the rights vested in the vendor who was not full 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 the sale as per terms and conditions of exemption. 18. Land for Mustafa Town Scheme was acquired on the basis of exemption which implied that 30% of the land of owners was exempted from compulsory acquisition and they, on certain specific terms and conditions, were allocated developed plot(s) equal to their right of exemption i.e. 30% of their total holding acquired/surrendered. Title of the exempted plot is, however, transferred on fulfillment of certain terms and conditions which are part of exemption. Therefore, the exemptee is not a full owner and exemption letter doesn't constitute absolute title in the plot. The title of the plot remains vested in the LOA till exchange deed is executed. The plot No, 79-A Ahmed ,;r

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

I Yar Block Mustafa Town was exempted against the share of land of Khasra No. 7069/2 Jadeed (5055 old) Mauza Niaz Beg, falling in Mustafa Town Scheme through an exemption letter. The applicant was transferred exemption rights subject to the terms and conditions contained in the agreement /exemption letter. He was bound to transfer the land against which the exemption was granted, in favour of LOA by executing an exchange deed after completion of building as per clause 16 of the exemption 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 the completion 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 of fraud or irregularities committed by the original Exemptee, the LOA or the Revenue Department functionaries does not absolve the applicant from abiding by the terms and conditions of the transfer of exemption accepted by him, even if the entire transaction and proceedings before transfer of exemption are proved to be fraudulent. He cannot raise the plea of protection on the principle of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In case he fulfills the terms and conditions accepted by him at the time of transfer of exemption, 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 which as 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 him or his predecessors to the LOA and instead the applicant took upon himself to transfer land to LOA by execution of an exchange deed. The vendor has not 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 the price of the land which was to be transferred to LOA in exchange of the subject plot. The applicant is liable either to transfer the land, as per exemption 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 of title of the plot in his favour.

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

,;I" 9 0w·_ 1i~"I)-c/?].D(}" I,

:2"1,-- oK -_'?i:>;__,_L""f L-2 _ name of the original exemptee, Mst. Naz Ishfaq who was not owner of her claimed land, the plot would have been certainly cancelled and she could have no right for its regularization. But when the plot has been transferred to Mr. Muhammad Nazir on 24-12-2010 he has become entitled to retain the plot under these proceedings on establishing that he is a bona fide purchaser. The right of exemption i.e. to get the title of the plot by transferring ownership of above mentioned land, was conferred by the LOA when the LOA 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 in sub section (4) of section 32 of the LOA (Amendments) Act, 2013 which reads:

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

21. According to the DC's valuation table notified for 06.03.2004 which was prevalent on the date of 1st. transfer i.e. 04-08-2005, the price per Marla in Mustafa Town, was Rs.65,OOO/-perMarla. Thus price of 146.76 sq.m. plot comes to Rs.4,54,257- at the time of 1st. transfer. Applicant's predecessor paid 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 gas charges paid are not the part of the price of the plot and similarly the amounts paid subsequently for building period extensions or any additional amount recovered on account of delayed payments cannot be considered as part of the cost of the plot. It was the responsibility of the applicant as discussed above, to get transferred required land to the LOA and it is the applicant who had 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 delayed payment as specified in clause 2 of the allocation letter dated 08-01-1996 and clause 3 of the exemption letter dated 29-09-2004. On account of his failure to fulfill the terms and conditions of exemption, he will have to pay to the LOA an 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 Valuation nearest 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 Rs.6,2501-

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

4)

Dev. Charges paid on 23-09-2004 Rs.28972/-

5) Mark up on Dev Charges amounting to Rs.28972/-for the period Rs.4376/- From 23-09-2004 to 04-08-2005

6) Total Development charges with markup

Rs.69,483/-

7) Cost of plot land (Total value - Dev. Charges paid) Rs.3,84,774/-

8) Add mark up for the period from the date of 1st. transfer of exemption to the date of filing of Rs.6,54,537/- application (22-04-2015)

9) Total amount to be paid by the applicant to resolve the dispute Rs.10,39,311/-

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

22. From the available record and the evidence produced before the Commission it appears that; I. The applicant was not a party to the fraud committed by Mr. Zulifqar Ali s/o Asghar Ali and Mst. Naz Ishfaq who managed exemption fraudulently just on a sale deed, in connivance of LOA staff as discussed in para-11 above. II. He purchased the plot in good faith after a reasonable inquiry conducted by him from 2nd Transferee and LOA. III. At the time of his purchase there was nothing on the record of the LOA to indicate any suspicious circumstances calling for inquiry as plot had been transferred twice before without any objection. The fraud came to lime light after record of Mustafa Town was scrutinized in 2012. IV. The applicant had paid market price, Rs.65,00,000/- to the vendor for transfer of exemption rights and possession of the plot for which he produced oral as well as documentary evidence.

Therefore, he is held to be a bona fide purchaser of the rights of exemption granted by LOA to the original exemptee. 23. In view of the above discussed facts, the record and the evidence examined, recommendations of the Commission are as under:-

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

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

III. Subsequent to the payment of the above determined amount by the applicant or after final orders of the court of competent jurisdiction in case of appeal, the title of the applicant or his successor in interest at no stage, shall be called in question by the LOA and the cases for sanction of the building plan, commercialization, issuance of NOC, further transfer etc. if any in respect of the above plot shall be processed by the LOA as per relevant rules/policy in vogue. iv. In case the applicant fails to pay the above amount within six months from the date of the issuance of the Challan(s), the LOA may, retrieve the plot but not without compensation as envisaged in the clause 17 of the Exemption Letter read with the transfer. On retrieval of the plot LOA will refund the development charges received with markup @ 17.5% from the date of the payment of development charges to the LOA up to the date of the LOA's cheque for the refund amount payable to the applicant. The amount so calculated shall be refunded within one month of the retrieval of the plot. v. If the applicant has raised construction on the plot after approval of the building plan, he will be entitled, in case of retrieval of plot by LOA, to receive compensation for the construction or any other development made by him as determined by the Chief Engineer, UO Wing, LOA. However, no compensation for the structure will be payable in case the building plan was not approved by the competent authority.

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

'VINI~-'J,. >__0 t-1-D 'J (Muhammad Yousaf) (Ja .

Member, LOAC Chairman, LOAC

Announced

23.08.2017

13