BEFORE LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION,LAHORE

PRESENT:

Mr. Javaid Akhtar, Chairman

Mr. Muhammad Yousaf, Member

Reference No. 53/2017

Mr. Abdul Rahman slo Ch. Abdul Rahim RIo Earl Street BlackburnBBI 7ND England through Bilal Ahmad Slo Mubarak Ahmad RIoHouse No. 83-C, PCSIR Staff Housing Society Lahore

Applicant

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. JoharTown, Lahore.

Respondents

Order

Mr. Bilal Ahmad slo Mubarak Ahmad submitted an applicationon behalf of Mr. Abdul Rahman slo Abdul Rahim a Pakistani living inEngland at One Window on 24.10.2016 vide receipt No. 2362349 for filingreference to the LOA Commission. The Authorized Officer under sub­section (4) of section 32 of 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 this Commission which was received on18.05.2017. It was entered in the Institution Register at Serial No.53 of2017. Notices were issued to the Applicant, the Director General LOA andDirector Land Development-I, Land Acquisition Collector, LOA and PatwariHalqa Mouza Ajhodia Pur and other witnesses. The statements of theApplicant, his Attorney Suhail Zafar, Muhammad Ahmad slo MuhammadZaman, Mr. Aziz-ur-Rehman Sio Ch. Abdur Rahim, Mr. Bilal Ahmad andMr. Zaka-ud-din Yousaf slo Mian Zahoor-ud-din seller were recorded onoath. The record of halqa Patwari and LAC branch of LOA was consulted.The documents produced by the Patwari halqa Ajhodia Pur and LAC wereexamined and photo copies thereof were placed on the reference file. FileNo. JTAP 3177 related to the allotment of the plot No. 97, Block-G/1, MA

:11litI (/11 1i V !;t / i _ __",-<1,~ • -- I"1._...-

~..- '1 .tJ • 'f~~ .,li"" v!i

Johar Town attached with the reference by the Land DevelopmentDirectorate-I (hereinafter referred to as plot file) was examined. The fileNo. JTAPN/30 and its part filesrelated to exemption of plots to MuhammadZaman s/o Nayyaz Muhammad was also called and examined.

2. Mr. Abdul Rehman earlier had filed a suit in the civil court againstLOA apprehending that the latter was bent upon cancelling the exemptionof the plot. This suit was dismissed on 04.01.2010 due to non-prosecution.He later on filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court praying that LOAshall decide his application for further transfer of plot. Mr. Shahid Karim theHonorable Judge of the Lahore High Court on 15.12.2014 directed OLD-I todecide the application within twenty days. However meanwhile Mr. AbdulRehman filed a civil suit pleading that the transfer set submitted to LOA infavour of Mr. Ijaz Younas s/o Muhammad Younas be declared in-effectiveand in-operative. The court of Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan Civil Judge passeda decree in favour of Plaintiff Abdul Rehman. Hence the application filed byMr. Abdul Rehman for transfer of plot in favour of Mr. Ijaz Yonas hasbecome inoperative. As per record available, no case is pending in anycourt regarding the plot under consideration. Mr. Bilal Ahmad the Attorneyof the Applicant has also filed an Affidavit that no case is pending regardingthis property in any court.

3. LOA in its reference has recorded following facts of the case;

"Succinct facts of the case are that one, Muhammad Zaman S/oNayyaz Muhammad vide application dated 10.03.2005 claimedownership of land measuring 3-Kanal out of Khasra No. 25, 114, 592,242, 1308/721 Mouza Ajudhiapur Lahore and requested for grant ofexemption in lieu of said land (F/A). The Land Acquisition Collector,LOA certified his ownership vide Award Part-B Sr. No. 583 and Part­C Sr. No. 309. (FIB). He was granted exemption/allocation of twoplots bearing No. 97, Block-G-I, measuring 250 Sqm. (F/C) and No.385, Block R-I, measuring 105 Sqm in M.A. Johar Town Scheme.The instant case pertains to plot No. 97, Block G-I, M.A. J.T.

Allocation letter of plot No. 97, Block-G-I, M.A.J.T. was issuedvide No. JT-AP-3177/982 dated 12.04.2007 (F/D). Exemption letterwas issued vide No. JT-AP-3177 dated 16.06.2007 (FIE). Possessionorder was issued vide No. JT-AP-3177/1978 dated 07.07.2007 (F/F).Physical Qabza letter was issued by Estate Officer, LOA vide No.2848 dated 01.08.2007 (FIG)

Plot No. 97, Block-G-I, M.A.J.T. was transferred further asunder:

2,

I •__

___- .-~-- ,til r--~--a ...n""

S# Name of Transferor Name of Transfer PageTransferee Letter

1. Muhammad Zaman Zaka-ud-Din JT-AP- F/HSio Nayyaz Yousaf 3177/4722Muhammad Sio Zahoor-ud- Dated

Din 22.9.072. Zaka-ud-Din Yousaf Abdul Rehman JT-AP- F/I

Sio Sio 3177/632Zahoor-ud-Din Ch. Abdul Dated

Rahim 16.01.2008

It is appropriate to mention here that said Muhammad ZamanSio Nayyaz Muhammad had already procured exemption of plots onanother file bearing No. JT-AP-N-30 through negotiation against landmeasuring 13 Kanal 7 marla comprising khasra Nos. 25, 114, 592,242, 1308/721. 170 min, 628 min, 710 min, 337 min, 126 min, 650min, 171 min, 571 Mouza Ajudhiapur. He concealed this fact from theoffice and against land measuring 3-Kanal again obtained exemptionof plots on file No. JT-AP-3177 and also succeeded to transfer theplots further.

After disclosure of above said fact of double exemption, AbdulRehman (transferee) apprehended that office may not cancel plot No.97, Block-G-I, M.A. Johar Town from his name he filed a civil suittitled "Abdul Rehman Vs. LOA" for declaration and permanentinjunction which was dismissed due to non-prosecution by the courtof Raja Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Civil Judge, Lahore vide order dated4.1.2010 (F/J & F/K).

Abdul Rehman submitted applicationltransfer set dated30.9.2012 for transfer of plot No. 97, Block-G-I, M.A. Johar TownScheme in the name of Ijaz Younas Sio Muhammad Younas whichwas not processed by the office (F/M).

Mr. Abdul Rehman filed a Writ Petition No. 33037/2014 "titledAbdul Rehman Vs LOA" and sought direction from HonourableLahore High Court, Lahore vide order dated 15.12.2014 thatrespondent No.2 Director Land Development-I, LOA Johar Town,Lahore may decide the application of the petitioner within 20 daysfrom the receipt of a certified copy of this order. He shall do so byhearing the petitioner and by a speaking order and shall act strictly inaccordance with law applicable to the case of the petitioner. (FIN).

Meanwhile Mr. Abdul Rehman through Sohail Muzaffar SloMian Muzzafar Amin (General Power of Attorney) submitted an

3

application vide OWO No. 2362349 dated 27.10.2016 whereby herequested to place his case before Bona Fide Commission, LOA.

Speaking orders were yet to be passed by the Director LandDevelopment-I, LOA Mr. Abdul Rehman filed another civil suit titled"Abdul Rehman Vs. LOA" for declaration with the following prayer:-

"... prayed that a declaratory decree in favour of theplaintiff and against the defendants may kindly be passedwith effect that the transfer set was submitted with thedefendant No.2 without receiving any consideration fromthe defendant No. 1 so the same is in effective in­operative and against the rights of plaintiff and is liable tobe returned to the plaintiff forthwith to meet the ends ofjustice. (FlO)."

The court of Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan, Civil Judge, decreed thesuit of the plaintiff vide order dated 12.04.2017 F/P."

4. In light of reports obtained from different quarters, followingobservations were made about the instant case;

1) "Land Acquisition Collector, LOA at Para No. 305-306 hascertified the ownership of Muhammad Zaman Sio NayyazAhmed with reference to Award part-C Sr. No. 310 and partB Sr. No. 583 vide as 3-Kanal.

2) Verification of dues was sought from Directorate of Revenuewhich is available at para 223/N. As per report, all amountsstand verified.

3) The status of plots No. 97, Block G-I, M.A. Johar Town inpossession register and at site was sought from Directorateof Estate Management-I, LOA. The Estate Branch at paraNo. 334 to 336/N has reported that as per Qabza registerpossession of plot No. 97, Block G-I was delivered to TanvirAhmed Sio Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed later on said possessionwas cancelled.There exist an entry regarding delivery of physicalpossession of plot No. 97, Block-G-I to Muhammad ZamanSio Nayyaz Ahmed on Qabza Register. There exists anentry with red ink on the qabza register regarding grant ofstay by the court of Mr. Sajjad Bakhat and during stayphysical possession cannot be handed over.

4) Report of Town Planning Wing is available at para 231/Nwhich shows that building file of the said plot is available in

t,.:~ u:

t~~~\r4

record and building plan was sanctioned vide No. BN1890-JT/5714 dated 14.05.2011.

5) Instant file is available in the inventory list of 2008.6) Appearance alongwith original ownership documents of Mr.

Sohail Muzaffar appeared on behalf of Abdul Rehman hasbeen recorded at para 319/N.

7) Mr. Abdul Rehman claims himself to be bona fide purchaserof plot No. 97, Block-G-I, M.A Johar Town, Lahore. Hethrough Sohail Muzaffar Slo Mian Muzzafar Amin (GeneralPower of Attorney) vide application vide OWO No. 2362349dated 27.10.2016.

It is pertinent to mention here that The Lahore DevelopmentAuthority Commission on issues of bona fide purchasers etc.was formed under Section 32 of the Lahore DevelopmentAuthority (Amendment) Act 2013 (XXVI of 2013). Section 32(4)of aforementioned act which reads as under:

"The Authority or any officer so authorized by theAuthority, on its own motion or on the application of anyperson, may refer any matter to the Commission forconsideration, resolution and decision if a prima faciecase is made out".

In pursuance of minutes of meeting of LahoreDevelopment Authority held on 04-04-2015 and vide officeorder No. LDNDC&1/3085 dated 03-07-2015, Exemption CasesScrutiny Committee has been authorized to examine andscrutinize all such applications and if a prima facie case ismade out, then send the matter to LOA Commission for furtherprocessing in accordance with law.

In view of the above, the instant case isrecommended to be placed before the Exemption CasesScrutiny Committee for examining the merits and demerits ofthe case and for talking appropriate decision for referring thecase to the LOA Commission."

As mentioned earlier in Para 1, the Exemption Cases Scrutiny Committeehad referred the case to the Commission.

5. The Applicant Abdul Rehman slo Ch. Abdul Rahim Rio Earl StreetBlackburn, UK appeared on 19.07.2017 and recorded his statement onoath and contended that the plot No. 97, Block G/1 MA Johar Town was

~ ~.'I, ~. _// ....~ '\,,11 \'1"~~/~_ll

---

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

purchased by him through his brother AZiz-ur-Rehman. Since he himselfwas living abroad, he gave the whole responsibility to his brother forpurchase of plot. He claimed that he had sent a total of Rs.1,05,00,0001- forpurchase of plot. But he did not know that how much total amount wasactually paid by his brother to the seller. He contended that when the dealwas finalized he came to Pakistan and went to the house of the seller Mr.Zaka-ud-din Yousaf and from there they went to LOA office and signed thetransfer papers before an Officer of LOA. He claimed that his brother Aziz­ur-Rehman also appeared before the LOA officer and signed the documentas identifier. He recognized the signature of his brother on transferapplication. He argued that Mr. Zaka-ud-din Yousaf the Seller had alsoadmitted in the affidavit (page 145/c of plot file) that he had received thetotal sale amount.

6. Mr. Zaka-ud-din Yousaf slo Mian Zahoor-ud-din RIo House No. 9/BShadman-2, Lahore in his statement recorded on 24.07.2017 at his house,since he was under medical treatment, stated on oath that he purchasedthe said plot from Muhammad Zaman and sold to Mian Mahmood againstan amount of Rs.10 million. He admitted that for transfer of the plot he wentto the LOA office and signed the documents. He also admitted that hesigned the transfer application and an affidavit (page 145/C) which sta~esthat he had received the amount from Mr. Abdul Rehman slo Abdul Rahim.He claimed that he checked the record of plot through Mian Ma~mood and

. . the office of LOA pointed out any defect In the plot.at that time no one In . h throughHe did not remember that whether he received amount In cas orcheque.

Ahmad RIo Liaqat Abad Kakka Kolo7 Muhammad Zaman slo Nayyaz rted by Assistant. O· t . t Gujranwala as repo

Tehsil Wazirabad ISric . .' M hammad Ahmad, who was. b d had died HISson u thCommissionerWazlra a '.. . on 09 08.2017, produced dea

summoned by the Commission a~p~a~~:statem'ent on oath. He informedcert',ficateof his father and recor e . ith Mr Zaka-ud-din Yousaf

. h d was serving WI. 991that his father from child 00 , C' emas in Gujranwala. After 1and also worked as Ma~ager at latt~~~ I~d they had no contact with Mr.his father left the job with za~a;~:m ~~a~he had sold any plot to Mr. za~~Zaka. His father never Informe r urchased any plot In Lahore..d din His father never got allotted ~ P d any documents in the plot file.

u - . h' father ever had slgne .also doubted that IS SPA was issued In

stated that an .PA of Abdul Rehman . while residing InSuhail Muzaffar S he could not follow the case In Lahort:nt case. Mr. Bilalhis name but since d Mr Bilal Ahmad to pursue the Ins Ie/purchase of theUK, he had authorize .ad no knowledge about the sa, _Ahmad admitted that he h {/.I11"

rn 6 06.\\In!\ U t\ : ,.\ ' _. 1 :¥, i .. .....>: ') "l I

>J '_'A~ ,/: ' . / .'..,/ .,.'1 ~,I

_",- i)tI

plot. He contended that the relations between two brothers Aziz-ur-Remanand Abdul Rehman are estranged.

8. Mr. Zaka-ud-din Yousaf was summoned again by the Commission tomake certain clarifications. In his statement on oath he confirmed that hemet Mr. Aziz-ur-Rehman who had come along with Mian Mahmood. MianMahmood had already occupied this plot and had assured him that hewould get allotted the plot in his name (Mr. Zaka-ud-din Yusaf). He clarifiedthat he received amount only in papers but actually it was received by MianMahmood. Mr. Zaka-ud-din witness also admitted that he was owner ofCinemas in Gujranwala and Muham,mad Zaman was his employee. Theaward was notified in the name of Muhammad Zaman and demand noticewas also issued in his name. He also admitted that in General Power ofAttorney issued by Muhammad Zaman in favour of Javaid Ahmad whereinaddress of Muhammad Zaman was mentioned as 64/13 Sarfraz RaffiqueRoad Lahore Cantt., he signed the document as identifier (pages 0032-35File JTAP (N)/30). But he did not know Mr. Javaid Ahmad slo RajaMahboob Ahmad in whose favor GPA was issued. He also acknowledgedhis signatures as identifier on sale deeds executed by Mst. Zahida OostMuhammad, Mst. Ashraf Begum and Mst. Khurshid Begum in favor ofMuhammad Zaman slo Nayyaz Muhammad (pages 11-36 plot file). But hedenied that he knew Oost Muhammad. He confirmed that MuhammadZaman had died but he had no knowledge that latter ever lived in RiwazGarden. He also admitted that Muhammad Zaman signed certaindocuments on his instructions.

9. Mr. Aziz-ur-Rehman brother of the Applicant appeared on03.11.2017 after many notices and recorded his statement. He contendedthat Mian Maqsood Ahmad brother of Mian Mahmood Ahmad had informedhim about the availability of plot for sale. He met Mian Zaka-ud-din Yousafin the office of Mian Mahmood and deal was finalized. He did notremember the amount of bid money paid by him but he claimed thatRs.1,05,00,0001- were paid for the purchase of plot. He identified hissignature on transfer application and stated that he went to LOA office fortransfer of plot. He admitted that before purchase of plot he did not checkthe Revenue Record because he was not aware of the conditions ofexemption. He produced an "Agreement to Sell" in original. (Copy at pages185-189/C of reference file). When he was confronted with this fact that theback side of Stamp Papers used for this "Agreement to Sell" was blankdonot bear the signature of stamp seller, License number, date of issuanceof Stamp Paper, etc. he contended that the Stamp Papers were producedby Mian Zaka-ud-Yousaf. He also admitted the "Agreement to Sell" waswritten and signed after the transfer of the plot.

~rf,

'. ~ ;1 "j~ I~,I

\L~!,~w ~J:r

7

10. The plot No. 97 Block G-I MA Johar Town was exempted toMuhammad Zaman Sio Nayaz Muhammad, as per Ishteqaq form, againsthis claimed land measuring 03K-00M in Khasra Nos. 25,114,592,252 and1308/721. As per revenue record and report of Patwari Halqa (P/607 -639)Muhammad Zaman slo Nayyaz Ahmad, in Jamabandi of 1995-96 wasowner of the land measuring 12K -18M in Khewat No.1 072 khasra no. 25(00K-16M), Khewat No. 1077 Khasra No. 114 (00K-06M), Khewat No. 1101Khasra No. 592 (00K-12M), Khewat No. 1109 Khasra No. 2210/337 (02K-19M), Khewat No. 1128 Khasra No. 1308/721 (00K-06M), Khewat No.1144 Khasra No. 710/2 (00K-11M), Khewat No. 1176 Khasra No. 171(02K-01M), Khewat No. 1242 khasra No. 571/1 (00K-10M), Kheewat No.1257 Khasra No. 242 (01K-OOM),Khewat No. 1124 Khasra No. 650 (01K-06M) and Khewat No. 1214 Khasra No. 2633/591 (02K-11M). He hadobtained exemption of four plots, one kanal each in file NO.JTAPN/30,against his total land ownership. In the exemption granted in that file thearea of land was already included against which he again filed applicationon 29.11.2006.

11. The perusal of plot file revealed that application for exemption wasfiled by Muhammad Zaman slo Nayyaz Ahmad Rio 9/B, Shadman Lahoreon 10.03.2005 at One Window. But this application was marked byAssistant Director Exemption on 22.01.2007. The application seems to bepre-dated to make it eligible for consideration since closing date for filing ofapplications with regard to exemption under MA Johar Town Scheme was10.03.2005. This presumption is supported by this fact that anotherapplication was submitted by Muhammad Zaman on 29.11.2006 and thenote portion of the file starts from 29.11.2006.

While processing this application, LOA officers did not get confirmed theidentity of Muhammad Zaman slo Nayyaz Ahmad. From the face of recordit was apparent that the Residential and Permanent address in 10 card bothshowed him as a resident of village Liaqatabad Kakka Kolo TehsilWazirabad district Gujranwala. This address was different from theaddresses mentioned in sale deeds and in the Revenue Record and also inthe application.

12. The exemption on Ishtehqaq form available in plot file was proposedon 22.01.2007 by Assistant Director Exemption and file was sent to OLD-Ithrough DO E for perusal (page 0007-8/N). The Ishtehqaq form did not bearthe signature of Head Clerk which shows that Assistant Director did notconsidered necessary to get the case initiated from his staff and himselfmoved the proposal of the exemption. The exemption letter No.LDAlJT/AP/31777/675 dated 16.06.2007 was issued in the name of

8 ~.\l.?DI~

Muhammad Zaman at his address 9/B Shadman Lahore (page 0087 plotfile). The Possession letter was also issued to Muhammad Zaman on thesame address. (page 00101 plot file) Later on the plot was transferred toZaka-uddin Yousaf and transfer letter was issued in the name of Zaka-ud­din Yousaf Slo Zahur-ud-din RIo 9-B Shadman 2 Lahore (page 00135 plotfile). No one bothered to raise question about the relationship between thetransferor and the transferee. Subsequently the plot was transferred in thename of Abdul Rehman slo Abdul Rahim on 16.01.2008 (page 00171 plotfile).

13. In the whole file the reports have been prepared carelessly andambiguous reports have been recorded. In the file No. JT AP 3177/Aregarding plot No. 385 Block R-I MA Johar Town which was also exemptedto Muhammad Zaman slo Nayyaz Ahmad, at para No. 57/N it is mentionedthat LAC report about double exemption is at para 49/N of the main file. Butin para 49 there is nothing with respect to double exemption. In theGoshwara prepared at para 179-181, File No. JT/AP/N 30 has not beenmentioned wherein Muhammad Zaman slo Nayyaz Muhammad RIo 64/13Sarfraz Riffquie Road Lahore was also allowed exemption of Plot No. 20Block F-I MA Johar Town Lahore.

14. Since in the reference LOA has alleged the double exemptionbecause Muhammad Zaman had already been granted exemption in fileNo. JTAPN/30, that file was also requisitoned and consulted. Theexamination of plot file No. JTAPN/30 revealed that one MuhammadAzeem Bhatti slo Muhammad Shafi RIo 54 Babar Block New Garden TownLahore submitted an application to the Director General LOA on24.04.1995 that Plot No. 20 & 21 Block F-I MA Johar Town one Kanal eachwere exempted vide letter JT/AP (N) 30/10155 dated 09.07.1988 and JTA­P (N) 30Al10180 dated 07.09.1988 to Muhammad Zaman slo NayyazMuhammad. He claimed that he purchased two plots through registeredsale deeds dated 10.10.1988 and these were transferred in his name on03.12.1989. A list of Exemption of plots (Pages 0007) in Ajhodia pur alsoshowed that beside these two plots, plot No. 13, Block B and No. 389,Block 0, one Kanal each were also exempted to Muhammad Zaman sloNayyaz Muhammad. As per this list Muhammad Zaman slo NayyazMuhammmad was already exempted four plots measuring one kanal eachagainst his claimed land measuring 13K-07M. In fact the land ownershipwas 12K-18M but somewhere in one report the land was mentioned as13K-07M which was repeated in all reports. In the Exemption letters theaddress of Muhammad Zaman was mentioned as 64/13, Sarfraz RffiqueRoad Lahore. It is pertinent to mention that same address is mentionedagainst the name of Mst. Khurshid Begum wlo Dost Muhammad who sold

~. 9 ~ ~.~~ ~

~

~ ~/) o~_//\ ek\\-~\

! I;J.'\l'~l,J«+./~ '"~! "1

._....-/-" {c' .. J' J

- - ----------

the land to Muhammad Zaman. Interestingly against the name of ZahidaDost Muhammad dlo Dost Muhammad the address 9/B, Shadman 2Lahore was mentioned which in fact is and was the house of Mr. Zaka-ud­din Yousaf. The original file No. JTAAP(N)/30 was missing therefore thereconstruction of file was allowed on 07.05.1995. There is nothing in thenote portion of the file which could show that claim of Muhammad AzeemBhatti was ever verified that he is real transferee of the Plot No. 20 Block F­I MA Johar Town. The copy of Ishteqaq form is not available in main file orpart files which could show that how and who processed and allowedexemption of plots.

15. A copy of General Power of Attorney at page 0031-35 in mainfile JTAPN/30 shows that Muhammad Zaman executed GPA in favour ofJavaid Ahmad slo Raja Abdul Mahboob on 02.10.1988 who on the basis ofGPA sold plots No. 20 and 21 Block F-I to Muhammad Azeem Bhatti.Similarly he also issued GPA in favour of Mian Muhammad Shafique sloMian Muhammad Rafique RIo Ichra Lahore who sold the Plot No. 13, BlockB MA Johar Town to Mst. Shaheen Hassan. (Pages 39-41/C File No.JTAPN-30-B). Muhammad Zaman slo Nayyaz Muhammad also issuedanother GPA in favour of Ch. Muhammad Akhtar slo Ch. Rehmat Ullah RIo4 Millat Park Ichra Lahore. (Pages 59-61 File No. APN 30-C) In all theseGPAs issued to three different persons the identifier is Mr. Zaka-ud-dinYousaf. The permanent address of Muhammad Zaman was mentioned as64/13, Sarfraz Raffique Road Lahore Cantt. and temporary address as 9/BShadman Colony No.2 Lahore. The latter address was in fact the residenceof Mr. Zaka-ud-din Yousaf.

The exemption order in file No. JTAPN/30 was issued to MuhammadZaman slo Nayyaz Ahmad on his address 64/13 Sarfraz Raffique RoadLahore Cantt. The process server of the Commission has reported that oneMuhammad Zaman living at this address has denied that he had anythingto do with the exemption of plots. In a letter addressed to this Commissionhe has stated that his name is Rana Muhammad Zaman slo Rana CharghDin and he is living in this house since 1983. Muhammad Zaman sloNayyaz Ahmad never lived there even as a tenant. (page 173/C Referencefile). This fact proves that fake addresses were given in documents byMuhammad Zaman. This act creates doubts even about the genuinenessof the exemption of four plots in file No. JTAPN/30.

16. LOA in reference has not mentioned that whether an enquiry is inprogress regarding file No. JTAPN/30 and also has not opined in which filethe double exemption has been obtained in JTAPN/30 or JTAP-3177.Because the exemptee and the person who obtained the exemptions in

\

~ /I.r 10~' \\,1-Or=r'''. Ob'I~! j:!1]/ ;,~.,.t.,,,4A' "//,. f1,A Ir_/,_"..-'""ft, /11./

---- - ---------

both files is the same. Neither there is any report in the reference about thestatus of other three plots exempted to Muhammad Zaman in part files. Butsince the exemption of plot no. 97 Block G-I was issued on 16.06.2007 videLOA letter no. JT/AP/3177/1675, the exemption of this plot will beconsidered double and fraudulent.

17. The fact that the exemption in the name of Muhammad Zamanslo Niaz Ahmad was obtained in the file showing his address as 64/13Sarfraz Rafique Road Lahore and a copy of agreement to sell which wasexecuted by Mst. Khurshid Begum wlo Ch. Dost Mohammad bears thesame address and the address of Mst. Zahid Dost Mohammad dlo DostMohammad bear the address of 9/B Shadaman Colony which is theresidence of Zaka-ud-Din Yousaf, clearly proves that Zaka-ud-Din Yousafwas the mastermind behind the bogus exemption in the file No. JTAP/3177in the name of Muhammad Zaman.

18. In his application Muhammad Zaman had claimed the exemption inlieu of the land measuring three Kanal in Khasra Nos. 25, 114, 592, 242and 1308/721 in Mouza Ajhodia pur. (page-1IC plot file) Along with hisapplication he attached copies of Sale deeds and Jama Bandi. In all thesedocuments the address of Muhammad Zaman slo Nayyaz Muhammad wasmentioned as 11-C, Riwaz Garden Lahore. Whereas in the 10 card theaddress of Muhammad Zaman slo Nayyaz Muhammad was mentioned asresident of Liaqat Abad, Kakka Kolo Tehsil Wazirabad District Gurjranwala.In all copies of Agreements to Sell attached with the applications whichpurportedly were executed by Mst. Zahida Dost dlo Dost Mohammad RIo9/B Shadman Colony 2, Lahore, Mst. Ashraf Begum wlo Zahoor-ud-Din,Resident of 39, Main Gulberg Lahore, Mst. Khurshid Begum wlo Ch. DostMohammad RIo 64/13 Sarfraz Riffique Road, Lahore; all in favour ofMuhammad Zaman slo Nayyaz Muhammad, his residential address wasmentioned as 11 Riwaz Garden Lahore. In all sale deeds Mr. Zaka-ud-DinYousaf was cited as an identifier and witness (Pages 11-18/C plot file). Thehouse address of Mr. Zaka-ud-din was mentioned as the residentialaddress of one of the executant of sale deed, Mst. Zahida Dost and also ofapplicant Muhammad Zaman slo Nayyaz Muhammd. All three ladies ZahidDost, Khurshid Begum and Ashraf Begum and Muhammad Zaman himselfbecame the owners of land on the basis of sale of land owned by 'CentralGovernment'.

19. The facts narrated above shows that Mr. Zaka-ud-din Yousafwas man behind processing and obtaining of all six exemptions and'preparation' of necessary documents. Whether sale of the land to all thesefour persons was genuine can only be ascertained through a thorough

01 (l! 11 \,", o~_A)--[II'-z»«:/1 UUN~'.I

<~J _.. /?'~.~// ,'WIt

o I/JI"'

probe conducted by District Collector Lahore. The land was transferred toMuhammad Zaman, Zahida Dost et al on the basis of TO. The relevant filesof auction of Central Government to Muhammad Zaman and others need tobe consulted during the inquiry. The result of the inquiry could establishwhether the land ownership was obtained fraudulently or Mr. Zaka-ud-dinYousaf purchased land as 'benami' transactions in the names of Mr.Muhammad Zaman and other three ladies and then got exemption againstthe land on the basis of their 'ownership'.

20. Different addresses of Muhammad Zaman were given indifferent documents and his actual address as mentioned in I.D. Card wasnever indicated. The exemption letter in file no. JTAPN/30 was issued atthe address of House No. 64/13 Sarfraz Rafique Road. The same addresswas used in sale deed executed by Mst. Khurshid Begum wlo DostMuhammad but for daughter of Dost Muhamamd the personal address ofMr. Zaka-ud-din Yousaf was used. For exemption letter of plot no. 97 BlockG-I although in the name of Muhammad Zaman was issued but the houseaddress of Mr. Zaka was mentioned which he is still occupying. From thesefacts, the perusal of record and statements of witnesses, there remains nodoubt that Mr. Zaka-ud-din Yousaf was doing the property business inassociation with Mian Mahmood a property dealer of Johar Town andinvolvement of Mr Aziz ur Rehman cannot be ruled out. Muhammad Zamanwas working as their front man. This conclusion is further augmented fromthe fact that Mr. Zaka-ud-din Yousaf signed as witness all Registered Saledeeds for sale of land in the favour of Muhammad Zaman. Mr. Zaka hasalso admitted in his statement that Muhammad Zaman was his employeeand he signed wherever Mr. Zaka-ud-din directed. He also admitted that hewas working with Mian Mahmood and the latter received the sale amount ofPlot No. 97 Block G-I MA Johar Town. These facts are also verified byMuhammad Ahmed son of Muamammad Zaman (late) has showenignorance that his father ever had any property in Lahore. If MuhammadZaman was such a big property dealer his children would not have beenresiding in a remote village.

Despite all these irregularities and fraud it is clear from the admission of Mr.Zaka-ud-din Yousaf that he received the amount of Rs. One crore for saleof the plot and handed over to Mian Mahmood who was occupying the plot.In the affidavit filed along with transfer application set he admitted thereceipt of the full amount of the plot and got transferred the plot in the nameof Mr. Abdul Rehman.

21. Although LOA has alleged that Muhammad Zaman got doubleexemption but it has neither disputed the issuance of exemption order

12

dated 16-06-2007 which was issued after verification by LAC (P54/C) northe claim of Applicant Mr. Abdul Rehman as bonafide purchaser. Hepurchased the plot after about one years of its exemption and no objectionwas raised while transferring the plot to him rather in Para 144/N of plot file,it was recorded that there is no other file in the name of exemptee.Therefore, the Commission despite the alleged fraud/collusion in theprocess of exemption, 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. Theabove 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 matterto the Commission for consideration, resolution and decision if aprima 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."

22. Exemption of the plot was transferred to the Mr. Abdul Rehmanby LOA on the same terms and condition on which it was held by theExemptee. Relevant portion of transfer letter No. JT/AP/3177/632 dated 16-01-2008 is reproduced below:

"I am to inform you that the exemption of the plot cited above hasnow been transferred to your name on the terms and conditions itwas held by the original Exemptee."

Mr. Abdul Rehman accepted the terms and conditions of the transfer. Hehimself signed the endorsement on the transfer application dated 07-01-2008 (page 0137 of plot file No. JT/AP 3177) which reads;

"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 the

13

Agreement/Exemption letter between the transferor and theLahore Department Authority."

23. In the affidavit at page 0141 of plot file No. JT/AP-3177, filed withthe transfer set, Mr. Abdul Rehman undertook to abide by the terms andconditions of the exemption of the said plot between the original Exempteeand 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 rightshave come to vest in him, those did not constitute full and absolute title inthe plot. Mr Abdul Rehman the Applicant was bound to fulfill the conditionslaid down in the Exemption letter No. JT/AP/3177/675 dated 16-06-2007issued to the original Exemptee. The Applicant, therefore, must have beenaware of the fact that his purchase was subject to the incident of thoseconditions which are contained in the exemption letter issued by theAuthority. The LOA had a right to cancel the allocation/exemption of plotunder clause 17 of the Exemption Letter No. JT/AP/3177/1675 dated 16-06-2007 which reads;

"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.)"

24. 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, 1882which 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.

14

25. Land in Mouza Ajudhiapur, was acquired for M.A. Johar TownScheme on the basis of exemption which means that 30% of the land ofowners was exempted from compulsory acquisition and they, on certainspecific terms and conditions, were allocated developed plot equal to theirright of exemption i.e. 30% of their total holding acquired/surrendered. Titleof the exempted plot is, however, transferred on fulfillment of the terms andconditions of exemption. Therefore, the Exemptee is not a full owner andexemption letter does not constitute absolute title in the plot. The title of theplot remains vested in the LOA till exchange deed is executed. The abovementioned plot was exempted against the land of Khasra Nos. 25, 114,592, 242 and 1308/721 in Mouza Ajhudia pur. (page-1IC plot file), falling inM.A. Johar Town Scheme. The Applicant was transferred exemption rightssubject to the terms and conditions contained in the exemption letter andwas bound to transfer the land against which the exemption was granted, infavour of LOA by executing an exchange deed after completion of building.Clause 16 of the exemption letter No. LDAlJT/NB-II/3177/1675 dated16.06.2007 (page 000087-88) which reads;

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

26. The defect in the ownership of the original Exemptee's land orplea of fraud or irregularities committed by the LOA or the RevenueDepartment function~~ies does not absolve the Applicant from abiding bythe t~rms and. conditions of the transfer of exemption accepted by him,even If the entire transaction and proceedings before transfer of exemptionar~ ~roved to be fraudulent nor can he raise the plea of protection on thepn~clple of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In case hefulfills t~e terms and conditions accepted by his at the time of transfer ofexe~ptlon, ~DA shall be bound to transfer to him the proprietary rightsnotwithstanding the fraud or coli '. 'ff usion committed by the LOAo icers/officials to which the Applicant tExemptee Muhammad Zaman id th was no a party. The originalexemption of the plot NO.97BIOC:~-I Me development c~arges for theby LOA have been duly verified Th' A ~ohar To.wn,which as admittedprice of the plot was not paid b .h' e Ap~llcant paid transfer fee but theinstead the Applicant took u ~ "" or his predecessors to the LOA andexecution of an exchange d dPTnhhimself to transfer land to LOA byIdee. e vendor has t .an .of plot nor transferred land to the L no paid any price of theApplicant to the vendor does t i DA, therefore, the price paid by the

no Include the pr' f the!!Jt, nsferred to LOA in ex h Ice,o e land which was to! c ange of the subject plot. Mr Abdul R h. I 15, '. e man~"tt 0 (;,·U·VJ('t-~:-~--

_w.- ...<-~.;IJ'" )J Jt

the Applicant cannot fulfil his liability to transfer the land to the LOAbecause the exemption in lieu of the claimed land ownership had alreadybeen granted in other cases therefore, alternatively in order to resolve thedispute, he has to pay the price of the land of the plot for transfer of title ofthe plot in his favour.

27. In view of the position, as has been noticed by the Commissionfrom the Revenue record, the Applicant cannot now get the above landtransferred to the LOA, therefore, he has to acquire proprietary rights onpayment of the price of the plot (minus development charges already paidby his predecessor). In case the plot had been in the name of the originalExemptee who got it allocated allegedly on the basis of fraud and collusion,the plot would have been certainly cancelled and he could have not anyright for its regularization. But when the plot was first transferred to Mr.Zaka-ud-din Yousaf slo Mian Zahur-ud-din, he would have been entitled toretain the plot under these proceedings on establishing that he was a bonafide purchaser. Therefore, the same right can be claimed by the presentApplicant. The right of exemption i.e. to get the title of the plot bytransferring ownership of above mentioned land, was conferred by the LOAwhen the LOA transferred exemption to the Applicant on receipt of transferfee, therefore, price of the plot as on 22-09-2007 as per ~C's ValuationTable along with charges for delayed payment, should be charged from himin order to resolve the dispute as envisaged in sub section (4) of section 32of the LOA (Amendments) Act, 2013 which reads:

"(4) The Authority or any officer so authorized by the Authority, on itsown motion or on the application of any person, may refer any matterto the Commission for consideration, resolution and decision if aprima facie case is made out."

28. According to the ~C's valuation table prevailing at the time of 1sttransfer i.e. 22-09-2007, the price per Marla in M.A. Johar Town (Ajodhiapur), was Rs. 100,0001- per Marla. Thus price of 270.38 sq.m. plot comesto Rs.12,87,524/-. The Applicant's predecessor paid to the LOA Rs.64,891/- on 20-12-2006 as development charges. Sui gas charges paid arenot the part of the price of the plot and similarly the amounts paidsubsequently for building period extensions or any additional amountrecovered on account delayed payments cannot be considered part of thecost of the plot. However, the amount of Rs.64,891/- paid as developmentcharges can only be considered a part of the price of the plot. It was theresponsibility of the Applicant as discussed above, to get transferred therequired land to the LOA and it is the Applicant who failed to abide by theterms .and conditions of the exemption, therefore, he is liable to pay mark~ it,

l"J.t~i->: I;}._ ... - t l ; 1b I

- ff'./ Ii

16

up at the rate of 17.5% per annum for delayed payment as specified inclause 2 of the Allocation Letter No. LOA JT/AP/3177/982 dated 12-04-2007 and clause 3 of the Exemption Letter dated No. LOAJT/AP/3177/1675 dated 16-06-2007. On account of his failure to fulfill theterms and conditions of exemption, he will have to pay to the LOA anamount of RS.31,46,541/- worked out below:-

Sr. No. Particulars Rupees

1) Price of the 270.38 sq.m. plot as per 12,87,524/-District Collector's Valuationnearest to the date of 1st. Transfer ofExemption i.e. 22-09-2007

2) Dev. Charges paid on 20-12-2006 64,891/-

3) Mark up on Dev Charges for the period 8,587/-from 20-12-2006 to 22-09-2007

4) Development charges +mark up 73,478/-

5) Plot price after deduction of development 12,14,046/-charges

6) Mark up on cost of the plot for the period 19,32,495/-from the date of 1st. transfer ofexemption 22-09-2007to the date of filingof application 24-10-2016

7) Add mark up to the cost of the plot 31,46,541/-

8) Total cost of the plot to be paid by the 31,46,541/-Applicant to resolve thedispute

29. From the record and the evidence produced by the Applicant itappears that:

I. Mr. Abdul Rehman the Applicant was not a party to the fraudcommitted by Mr. Zaka-ud-din Yousaf slo Mian Zahur-ud-dinand Muhammad Zaman slo Nayaz Muhammad whofraudulently got the exemption of another plot through bogusdocuments when Muhammad Zaman had already gotexemption of four plots against his claimed land.

or

17

.L.- . _

II. Zaka-ud-din Yousaf slo Mian Zahur-ud-din used his servant's1.0 card and prepared fake and bogus ownership landdocuments giving fake addresses to get exemption of the plotNo. 96 Block G-I MA Johar Town Lahore, which he later gottransferred in his name. Mian Mahmood was his partner ormentor as admitted by him who had already occupied the plotand helped him to get exemption in the name of MuhammadZaman and later its transfer to Mr. Zaka-ud-din Yousaf.

III. The Applicant had paid full and fair price of the plot rather muchhigher price to the vendor for transfer of exemption rights andpossession of the plot. As per DC rate the price of the plot wasRs.12,87,524/- but he paid Rs. One crore and five lacs for theplot.

IV. Therefore, the Applicant being an innocent buyer who whileliving abroad relied on his brother to purchase the plot, is heldto be a bona fide purchaser of the rights of exemption grantedby LOA to the original Exemptee.

30. In view of the above discussed facts, the record and theevidence examined, recommendations of the Commission are as under:-

a) Notwithstanding the fact that the Applicant is not able toexecute an exchange deed to transfer land in lieu of which the plotwas exempted, in terms of clause 16 of the Exemption Letter dated16.06.2007 read with the transfer letter dated 16.01.2008, the LOAshall transfer proprietary rights of plot No.97 Block G-I, M.A. JoharTown, Lahore, to the Applicant, on payment of Rs.31,46,541/- in lieuof the above 270.38 sqm. land, so that the dispute could be resolved.

b) The Applicant may opt to pay the amount in lump sum or in twoquarterly installments within 06 months of issuance of Challan(s). Incase 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 optionof the Applicant for the payment of the above amount in lump sum orin two quarterly installments.

c) Subsequent to the payment of the above determined amount bythe Applicant, the title of the Applicant or his successors in interest atno stage, shall be called in question by the LOA and the cases forsanction of the building plan, commercialization, further transfer etc.

18

in respect of the above plot shall be processed by the LOA as per itsrules/policy in vogue.

d) In case the Applicant fails to pay the above amount within sixmonths from the date of the issuance of the Challan(s), the LOA may,retrieve the plot but not without compensation as envisaged in theclause 17 of the Exemption Letter read with the transfer letter. Onretrieval of the plot LOA will refund the development charges receivedwith markup @ 17.5% from the date of the payment of developmentcharges to the LOA up to the date of the LOA's cheque for the refundamount payable to the Applicant. The amount so calculated shall berefunded within one month of the retrieval of the plot.

e) OG LOA will conduct an Inquiry regarding the fraudulentexemption of the plot to Mr. Muhammad Zaman and fix theresponsibility on officers and staff and private individuals whoprepared bogus documents to get exemption. The loss caused toLOA be recovered from employees and private individuals as thecase may be. How the possession of plot was given to MuhammadZaman on 24-07-2007 during a stay order by the court will also beprobed in to.

f) The District Collector also be asked to conduct a detailed inquiryand send a report whether the sale of land to Mst. Zahida OostMuhammad, Mst. Khushid Begum, Mst. Ashraf Begum andMuhammad Zaman through T.O. was genuine and in accordance torules.

g) After the completion of initial inquiry as recommended in sub­para (e) above, LOA shall request to OG ACE or NAB as deemappropriate to investigate and take legal action against thedelinquents for preparing forged documents and obtaining exemption

of plots fraudlllem. . .,,... .~.iJ\ f ..-'-" '~c1";--,.'\....\¥-("'!\~......-a -Ij '" ' , I

(Muhamrnad-vousaf)

Member, LOAC Chairman, LOAC

Announced

06.11.2017

19