BEFORE LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION,LAHORE

PRESENT:

Mr. Najam Saeed, Chairman.

Mr. Javaid Akhtar, Member.

Reference No. 19/2016Chaudhary Khurshid Ahmad slo Chaudhary Ghulam Ahmad HouseNo. 563-F, Block-F, Muhammad Ali Johar Town, Lahore.

Vs.

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

2. Director Land Development-I, 467/0-11, Main Boulevard, M.A. Johar

Town, Lahore.

OrderChaudhary Khurshid Ahmad slo Chaudhary Ghulam Ahmad

submitted an application at One Window on 05-05-2015 vide receipt No.2142007 for filing of reference to the LOA Commission. The AuthorizedOfficer under sub-section (4) of section 32 of the LOA (Amendment) Act,2013 read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Lahore Development AuthorityCommission Rules, 2014, referred the case to the Commission which wasreceived on 23-02-2016. It was entered in the Institution Register at SerialNo.19 of 2016. Notices were issued to the applicant and the RevenueOfficer, Mouza Niaz Baig for production of Revenue record related to theland owned by Mst Ramzan Bibi, the original exemptee. Statement of theapplicant was recorded on oath and the documents produced by theapplicant were examined and photo copies thereof were placed on thereference file. File No. JT.NB-1/147-A in respect of plot No. 563, Block-F,Muhammad Ali Johar Town Scheme, attached with the reference by theLand Directorate-I (hereinafter referred to as plot file) was examined andthe relevant record of Land Acquisition Collector, LOA was summoned andconsulted. The Commission itself visited the Patwar Khana of Mauza NiazBaig and collected the copies of the relevant record available there. Noticeswere issued to District Coordination Officer Lahore for production of therecord which was not available in Patwar Kana. But record was notproduced. Therefore, the Commission finalized the recommendations onthe basis of the record made available during the proc---~I

· ,

recommendations on the basis of the record made available during the

proceedings.2. According to the LOA reference, one Mst. Ramzan Bibi dlo JanMuhammad claimed ownership of land measuring 03-Kanal and 02-Marlafalling in Khasra No. 13269 of Mouza Niaz Baig, Lahore and requested forgrant of exemption in the shape of developed plots in lieu of her landacquired by the Lahore Development Authority for its scheme namely M.A.Johar Town. She was granted exemption of plots No. 597, Block-G/1(measuring 250 SaM) and 563-F, block-F (measuring 160 SaM) in M.A.Johar Town, Lahore against her claimed ownership, by the then DirectorLand Development on 06-01-1990 (para 23/N of the Plot file). Allocationletter of plot No. 563-F, Block-F (measuring 160 SaM) was issued in favourof Mst. Ramzan Bibi dlo Jan Muhammad vide letter No. JTNB-147-Al834dated 15-02-1990 (page 03/C of plot file). Exemption letter was issued videNo. JTNB-147-Al2471 dated 13-05-1990 (Page 17/C of plot file).Possession order of the said plot was issued vide letter No. JTNB-147-Al2632 dated 22.05.1990 in favour of Mst. Ramzan Bibi through MianMuhammad Waheed, holder of General Power of Attorney. The said plotwas transferred by Mst. Ramzan Bibi through GPA Mian MuhammadWaheed in favour of Mst. Raheela Anjum wlo Shamshad Hussain vide saledeed registered by Sub-Registrar (Sadar), Lahore as document No. 8092,Book No. 01, Volume No. 1147 dated 13.06.1990. The above said transferwas notified vide transfer letter No. JT/NB-1/147-Al3404 dated 26.06.1990(Page 69/C of the plot file). Plot was further alienated in favour of Mr. Ch.Khurshid Ahmad Slo Ghulam Ahmad vide letter No. JTNB-147-Al1045dated 19.01.1995 (Page 99/C of plot file). The plot was transferred on thesame terms & conditions on which it was held by the original exemptee.Later on, the plots No. 597, Block-G/1 and plot No. 563-F, Block-F werecancelled vide cancellation letter No. JT/NB-1/147-Al6115 dated 06.11.2007(Page121/C of the plot) due to the reason that the award of exemptee Mst.Ramzan Bibi had been cancelled in the light of the orders of theCommissioner Lahore Division, Lahore dated 18.07.2000.

3. The reference further stated that in the light of reports obtainedfrom different quarters, following are the facts regarding the instant case:

1) The award of exemptee Mst. Ramzan Bibi d/o Jan Muhammad stoodcancelled and amended in favour of Muhammad Ali slo GhulamMuhammad in light of orders of Executive District Officer (Revenue),Lahore dated 18.07.2000. (The order dated 18.07.2000 was made bythe Commissioner Lahore Division, Lahore). It is pertinent to mentionhere that Mr. Muhammad Ali slo Ghulam Muhammad has alsoobtained exemption against said land in file No. JTNB-1/480 .

•• 2 ~~

~\ \~~ {6

, , @2) Verification of dues was sought from Directorate of Revenue which is

available at para 123-125//N. As per report, all dues including first &final demand notices for development charges and first and secondtransfer fee have been verified.

3) The status of plots No. 563-F, Block-F in possession register and atsite was sought from Directorate of Estate Management-I, LOA. TheEstate Branch has reported at para 130-133/N that possession of plotNo.563-F, Block-F was handed over to exemptee Mst. Ramzan Bibithrough GPA Mian Muhammad Waheed and a double storey buildingis constructed at site. Later on, the entry in possession register stoodcancelled in light of cancellation order 06.11.2007.

4) Report of Town Planning Wing is available at para 137/N whichshows that building plan was sanctioned vide No. BA.105/JT/95/1279 dated 28-03-1995 in the name of Ch. KhurshidAhmad (2nd Transferee), which was later on cancelled in light ofcancellation order 06.11.2007. Completion certificate was not issuedregarding said plot.

5) The scrutiny list was consulted and the instant file is not included inthose files which are under scrutiny.

6) Instant file is not included in the list of missing files which waspublished in 2009.

7) It is pertinent to mention here that a legal case title "Khurshid AhmadVIs LOA etc" is pending in civil court regarding the subject plot."

4. Perusal of the record revealed that Mst. Ramzan Bibi wasowner of land in Mouza Niaz Baig in Khatooni No. 690 (new No. 1139)comprising Khasra number 13252 measuring 07K-07M and in KhatooniNo. 2013 (new No 2789) measuring 26K-14M comprising Khasra numbers2751 (03K13M), 1529 (03K-01M), 13216 (01K-09M), 13259 (01K-19M),13269 (05K-17M) and 13270 (10K-15M). She sold vide sale deed No. 873dated 02-11-1976 her total land in Khatooni No. 690 comprising Khasra No.13252 measuring 07K-07M and 264/400 share measuring 13K-04M fromKhatooni No. 2013 out of Khasra No. 13270, 13259, 13216 and 13269 toMuhammad Sarwar slo Abdul Ghafoor. Muhammad Ali slo GhulamMuhammad filed a pre-emption suit against sale of land to MuhammadSarwar, which was decided in his favour by the court of Ch. MuhammadHussain and the land was mutated in his favour vide Mutation No. 28297dated 04-09-1988. She was left with only 06K-16M land in the abovementioned four Khasra numbers, but she sold 10 Kanal land out of theseKhasra numbers to Mst. Bilqees Barkat wdlo Barkat Ali on 15.11.1976. Nosale deed or mutation in favour of Mst. Bilqees Bibi could be traced out. Butsubsequently this land was also transferred to Muhammad Ali slo GhulamMuhammad vide mutation No. 41016. Thus prima faci Mst. Ramzan Bibi

,

•had sold her entire ownership in these four Khasra numbers. As peravailable Revenue record she was left with no ownership in Khasra No.13269 in respect of which she claimed exemption and got allocated plotsNo. 597,Block-G/1 (measuring 250 SQM) and 563-F, Block-F (measuring160 SQM) in M.A. Johar Town.

5. But there is another aspect of the case that Mr. MuhammadSarwar and Mst. Silqees Barkat did not get the sale in their favourimplemented in the Revenue Record and no mutation was sanctioned till1979. In the Register Haqdaran Zameen 1979-80, the entire land isrecorded in the name of Mst. Ramzan Bibi in Khewats No.1139/690 and2789/2013. Mutation No. 28296 was sanctioned on 04.09.1988 wherebyland sold vide sale deed dated 02.11.1976 was transferred from Mst.Ramzan Bibi to Muhammad Sarwar slo Abdul Ghafoor. Subsequently theland was returned to Muhammad Ali through a pre-emption decree videMutation No. 28297 dated 04.09.1988. Then in pursuance of a pre-emptiondecree of the court of Rao Fahim Hashim Khan ADC (G) dated 12-12-1995, the land sold by Mst. Ramzan Bibi to Mst. Bilqees Sarkat was alsotransferred in favour of Muhammad Ali directly from Ramzan Bibi. But norecord regarding sale to Mst. Bilqees Barkat could be found except that it ismentioned in the order of the Commissioner Lahore Division dated 18-07-2000. But instead of 10 Kanals only 06K-16M land i.e. 136/400 share inKhasra Nos. 13270, 13216 and 13259 was transferred vide mutation No.41016 dated 30.04.1997. Thus no land in these Khasra numbers was leftwith Mst. Ramzan Bibi. Amazingly Mst. Ramzan Bibi even after 1976continued selling land out of the above mentioned four Khasra numbers.She also sold vide mutation No. 37052, 42/400 share out of the aboveKhasra numbers but the mutation was sanctioned for 01K-13M only inKhasra No. 13269 in favour of MIs Deep Well Corporation. However, theabove mentioned 42/400 share was allotted to Mst. Naseem Irshad inconsolidation. Subsequently, she was given 01K-13M in Khasra No. 13269vide Executive District Officer (Revenue), Lahore order dated 31.10.2006.The present applicant challenged the said order which was reviewed by theExecutive District Officer (Revenue), Lahore order dated 20.07.2010. Butthis order has not been implemented in the Revenue record. In view of theabove either both the transactions made in 1976 are bogus or the salemade thereafter, are fraudulent being over and above the land actuallyowned by her.

6. As mentioned above allocation letter of plot No. 563-F, Block-F(measuring 160 SQM) was issued in favour of Mst. Ramzan Bibi 0/0 JanMuhammad vide letter No. JTNB-147-A/834 dated 15-02-1990 (page03/C). Exemption letter was issued vide letter No. JTNB-147-A/2471 dated

•13-05-1990 (Page 17/C). Possession order of the said plot was issued infavour of Mst. Ramzan Bibi through GPA Mian Muhammad Waheed videletter No. JTNB-147-A12632 dated 22.05.1990. Thus the entire processwas completed within three months. Just after taking over possession, theplot was transferred by Mst. Ramzan Bibi through GPA Mian MuhammadWaheed in favour of Mst. Raheela Anjum w/o Shamshad Hussain vide saledeed registered by Sub-Registrar (Sadar), Lahore vide document No. 8092,book No. 01, volume No. 1147 dated 13.06.1990. The above said transferwas notified vide transfer letter No. JT/NB-1/147-A13404dated 26.06.1990(Page 69/C of the plot file). Simultaneously, plot No. 597, Block-G/1plotwas also transferred to Mst. Raheela Anjum. This fact does create a strongpresumption that Mst. Ramzan Bibi and her Attorney Mr. MuhammadWaheed had full knowledge of the fact that they had got the exemptionfraudulently and therefore, disposed of the plots immediately. Prima facie itwas a collusive transfer.

7. Upshot of the above discussion is that Mst. Ramzan Bibi gotthe exemption of plot No. 563, Block-F, Muhammad Ali Johar TownScheme without any entitlement as she was not owner in Khasra No.13269 against which she got exemption. Prima facie she or her Attorney orboth of them committed fraud and are liable to criminal action unless it isproved that fraud was committed by Mr. Muhammad Sarwar, Mst. BilqisBibi and Mr. Muhammad Ali who did not come up with his claim against hesaid land till exemption had already been granted to the other vendees ofMst. Ramzan Bibi. The Commission cannot amend or review the Revenuerecord or the decisions made by the Revenue Officers. Presently genuinelyor fraudulently all the above mentioned Khasra numbers owned by Mst.Ramzan Bibi stand mutated in favour of Mr. Muhammad Ali and noownership stands in the name of Mst. Ramzan Bibi in the Revenue record.Certainly there is some land mafia behind this case, which maneuvered toget exemption of 50K-19M as is indicated in Paras No. 196-198 of notingpart of the plot file No. JT/NB-1/480,against the total acquired area of 27K-07M out or Khatooni NO.690and Khatooni No. 2013. A detailed inquiry isrequired to be made by the LOA to find out the facts and fix responsibility.

8. However, despite the fraud/collusion, the Commission in viewof sub section (4) of section 32 of the LOA (Amendments) Act, 2013 readwith sub-section (5) of Section 32 of the Act (ibid) has to consider thepresent reference to resolve the dispute. The above mentioned provisionsof the Act are reproduced below:-

"(4) The Authority or any officer so authorized by the Authority,on its own motion or on the application of any erson, may refer

~~.(7~J) ~ 5

"-.J~ oS: 2.0u:

, , @)any matter to the Commission for consideration. resolution anddecision if a prima facie case is made out."

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

(a) bona fide purchase for value owing to irregular orfraudulent transaction in respect of property, the extent oflegality or illegality of the transaction, apportionment ofresponsibility in irregular or fraudulent transaction andtranslation of this responsibility into monetary terms andrecommendation of such conditions, fines, rate or fixprice, retrieval of property and demolition as deemedappropriate according to the nature of each case."

9. Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, the applicant contended that hepurchased plot from Mst. Raheela Anjum wlo Shamshad Hussain for aconsideration of Rs.3,10, 0001-. He produced agreement to sell with thevendor in support of his claim. He contended that he paid Rs.75, 0001- asadvance and the balance amount was paid at the time of transfer of the plotto Mst. Raheela Anjum in the presence of her husband and the LOA staff.He claimed that he satisfied himself about the ownership of Mst. RaheelaAnjum and produced sale deed executed by the original exemptee Mst.Ramzan Bibi dlo Jan Muhammad through her Attorney MuhammadWaheed in favour of Mst. Raheela Anjum. According to him he got thebuilding plan approved from LOA in 1995 and completed its construction.He stated that present whereabouts of Mst. Raheela Anjum are not knownto him.

10. Although LOA in view of the above discussed facts has rightlycancelled plot No. 563, Block-F, M. A. Johar Town Scheme, yet it has notchallenged the transfer proceedings of the exemption of the plot in favourof the present applicant. The exemption of the plot was transferred to theapplicant by LOA itself but on the same terms and conditions on which itwas held by the original allottee. The allocation and exemption letter wereissued under certain terms and conditions. Clause 07 of allocation letterNo. JTNB-147-A/834 dated 15-02-1990 (page 03/C of the plot file) andclause 17 of exemption letter No. JTNB-147-A/2471 dated 13-05-1990(Page 17/C of the plot file) are reproduced below:

"7). That, if at any stage, your title is proved to be defective oris discovered that the exemption has been procuredfraudulently the allocation of the plot shall stand automaticallywith-drawn.

< ,

, .,

•17). That if at any stage, your title is proved to be defective,the exemption of the plot shall stand automatically withdrawnand LOA will be entitled to take over the land alongwithstructure standing thereon without payment of any damage orcompensation. (E & 0 are to be taken up at any stage)."

The above terms and conditions were accepted by the present applicant asis evident from the transfer application dated 27.12.1994 (page No. 000075of plot file No. JT/NB-1/147-A) which contains the following endorsementduly verified by the applicant;

"I endorse the above application and if the property istransferred to me, I as successor in interest or (assignee) shallbe subject to all the conditions and terms contained in theAgreement/Exemption letter between the transferor and theLahore Department Authority."

Therefore, whatever rights had come to vest in the applicant, those did notconstitute full and absolute title in the plot. In the present case it isundisputed that the title in the plot vested in LOA. The exemptee was notfull owner and exemption letter does not constitute absolute title of the plot.The applicant was bound to fulfill the conditions laid down in the exemptionletter No. JTNB-147-A12471 dated 13-05-1990 read with the transfer letterNo. JTNB-147-A11045 dated 19.01.1995 (Page 99/C of the plot file). Theapplicant, therefore, was well aware of the fact that his purchase wassubject to the incident of those conditions which are contained in the abovementioned allocation/exemption letters and which have been accepted byhim. According to the terms and conditions of exemption, the LOA had aright to cancel the allocation/exemption of plot under clause 17 of theExemption Letter reproduced herein before.

11. 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 favour. Moreover,

" 7

~,o~.2.>1k

( ,, ,

•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 nothave 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. The applicant claimed that he has purchased theplot on payment of its price to the applicant and as such he is not liable topay any further amount to the LOA. This plea is not plausible as theapplicant accepted the terms and conditions of transfer of exemption in hisfavour and he was supposed to pay to the vendor the price keeping in viewthe terms and conditions of exemption/transfer.

12. 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 ofexemption. The defect in the ownership of the original exemptee's land orplea of fraud or irregularities committed by the LOA 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 LOA would not be bound to transfer title of theplot to him.

13. The original exemptee paid development charges only and inlieu of the price of land of the plot, she was supposed to valid title of01Kanal-06 Marla land for its transfer to LOA. The present applicant alsodid not pay the price of the land of the plot to the LOA. Now neither theoriginal exemptee not the present applicant is in a position to transfer01Kanal-06-Marla land to the LOA. At this stage the applicant cannot denythe right of the LOA to cancel the plot in terms of clause 17 of theExemption Letter reproduced above as the title of the land acquired hasbeen proved to be defective, But at the same time the applicant is abonafide purchaser of exemption rights which were transferred to him bythe LOA. Therefore, in order to resolve the dispute, the applicant shouldpay for transfer of title of the plot in his favour, in lieu of the 01Kana-06Marla land against which the exemption was gran n amount work d

· ,, '

out on the basis of a uniform formula devised and applied by theCommission in all other similar case.

14. The plot has been cancelled in terms of clause 17 of theexemption letter and LOA could have sold it at its present market price inthe open auction. But considering that the applicant was not involved in thefraud committed by his predecessor in interest and he has purchasedexemption rights in good faith, it will be appropriate if the benefit of thedifference of the present market price and the price as per DC's valuationtable is given to him. In order to restore the exemption of the plot andresolve the dispute, the Commission considers that the applicant shouldpay to the LOA, in lieu of the 01Kana-06 Marla land against which theexemption was granted, an amount worked out on the basis of two DC'svaluation tables; the valuation table in vogue when the exemption wastransferred to the applicant as calculated upto the date of application andthe valuation table applicable on the date of filing present application. Theapplicant will be required, by allowing him further benefit being a bona fidepurchaser of the exemption rights, to pay the amount whichever is lower ofthe two amounts so calculated. The first transfer in this case is prima faciea collusive transfer as pointed out above and as such it cannot be takeninto consideration.

15. According to the DC's valuation table notified on 29.09.1993which was applicable on the date of transfer of exemption by the LOAi.e.19.01.1995, the price per Marla in M.A. Johar Town, is Rs.25,0001- Thusprice of 160 sq.m. plot comes to Rs. 1,90,476/-. The applicant'spredecessor paid to the LOA Rs. RS.7670on 15.11.1989 and Rs. 8668 on08.03.1990 as development charges which only can be considered a partof the price of the plot. Sui gas charges paid are not the part of the price ofthe plot and similarly the amounts paid subsequently for building periodextensions or any additional amount recovered on account delayedpayments cannot be considered part of the cost of the plot. The firstamount which is the aggregate of the price based on the basis DC'svaluation table mentioned above and mark up at the rate of 17.5% perannum upto the date of application, as it was provided in clause 3 of theexemption letter for delayed payments, on account of the applicant's failureto fulfill the terms and conditions of exemption, is worked out as under:

Price of the plot as per District Collector's Valuation in Rs.1,90,476vogue on the date of transfer of exemption i.e.19.01.1995Dev. Charges paid on 15.11.1989 Rs. 7,670

, '

Mark up @ 17.5% for the period 15.11.1989 to Rs. 6,95019.01.1995Dev. Charges paid on 08.03.1990 Rs. 8,668Mark up @ 17.5% for the period 08.03.1990 to Rs. 7,38519.01.1995Total amount of development charges + mark up @17.5%Cost of plot land (Total value - Dev. Charges paid)Add mark up at the same rate for the period from thedate of transfer of exemption to the date of applicationTotal amount

Rs. 30,673

Rs.1,59,803Rs.5,67,431

Rs.7,27,234

16. The value of the plot worked out at rate of the DC's ValuationTable relevant on the date of the present reference application i.e. Rs.3,30,000 per Marla, comes to Rs. 25,14,285. By subtracting estimateddevelopment charges of Rs. 4,04,800, the amount is reduced toRs.21,09,485. (Development charges have been determined at the sameratio of the price of the plots and development charges as on 19.01.1995i.e. @16.1% of the then value of the plot). Although the developmentcharges paid against the plot constitute only 16.1% of the price of the plotas per DC's valuation table in vogue on 19.01.1995, when the exemptiontransferred by LOA to the applicant and the price of land was 83.9% of thetotal value of the plot, yet it would be fair if the applicant's liability isrestricted to 50% of the price of the plot as per DC valuation table in vogueon the date of his filing of reference application i.e. Rs.10,54,742.According to the formula devised by the Commission, the lower of theabove worked out two amounts is to paid.

17. As the amount worked out in para 15 is lower than the amountworked out in para 16, the applicant will be required to pay Rs. 7,27,234for resolving the dispute and restoration of the cancelled plot. In case anypatent error or omission apparent from the face of the record issubsequently discovered in the above computation, the Commission mayrectify the same on an application by either party after affording the otherparty an opportunity of being heard.

18. 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 LOA hascancelled exemption of plot No.563, Block , M.A. Johar Town,

~ 10

'3, lOS-: 26ft.

I r1 ,

Lahore, it is recommended to resolve the dispute that onpayment to the LOA by the applicant an amount of Rs.7,27,234, as worked out above as price of the land of the plot,in lieu of the above discussed 01 Kanal 06 Marla land, the plotshould be restored in favour of the applicant and proprietaryrights of the plot will also be transferred in favour of theapplicant.

II. However, if at any stage it is proved that the above discussedsale deeds in favour of Mst. Bilqees Barkat and Mr. MuhammadSarwar were not genuine and exemption granted to the Mst.Ramzan Bibi was valid, then the amount paid by the presentapplicant will be refunded to him even if the plot had beentransferred by him.

iii. In case no appeal is filed by the applicant or by the LOA againstthis order, the LOA shall issue to the applicant four Challansfor the payment of the above amount in four equal quarterlyinstallments.

iv. Subsequent to the payment of the above determined amount bythe applicant, the title of the applicant or his successor ininterest at no stage, shall be called in question by the LOA andthe cases for sanction of the building plan, commercialization,issuance of NOC, further transfer etc. in respect of the aboveplot shall be processed by the LOA as per relevant rules/policyIn vogue.

v. In case the applicant fails to pay the above amount within oneyear from the date of the issuance of the Challans, the LOAmay, take over possession of the cancelled plot but not withoutcompensation as envisaged in the clause 17 of the ExemptionLetter read with the transfer letter. On retrieval of the plot LOAwill refund the development charges received with markup @17.5% from the date of the payment of development charges tothe LOA up to the date of the LOA's cheque for the refundamount payable to the applicant. The amount so calculatedshall be refunded within one month of the retrieval of the plot.

vi. 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 Wi OA. However, no

'J, f'

compensation for the structure will be payable in case thebuilding plan was not approved by the comQetentauthority.

... ... c.

(Javaid aMember, LDAC

Announced31-05-2016

12