BEFORE LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION,LAHORE

Mr. Javaid Akhtar, Chairman

Mr. Muhammad Yousaf, Member

Reference No. 124/2018

Mrs. Naheed Naseer wlo Syed Naseer Ahmad, Syed Asim Naseer,Syed Aizaz Naseer, Syed Ahmad Naseer Ss/o and Syeda AmnaNaseer 0/0 Syed Naseer Ahmad, & Mrs. Haniya Ali wlo Syed AliAhmad RIo 185-B Tech Society, Canal Bank Lahore.

Applicants

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.

3. Additional Collector (Revenue) LahoreRespondents

Order

Mrs. Naheed Naseer wlo Syed Naseer Ahmad on behalf of joint ownerssubmitted application at One Window 08.12 15 vide receipt No.2234443 for filing reference to the LOA Commission. Authorized Officerunder sub-section (4) of section 32 of LOA (Amendment) Act, 2013 read withsub-rule (1) of the Rule 7 of the Lahore Development Authority CommissionRules, 2014, referred the case to the Commission which was received on18.05.2018. It was entered in the Institution Register at Serial No. 124 of2018.

Notices were issued to the Applicant, the Director LOA, DirectorLand Development-I, Sub Registrar Model Town and Patwari DLD-iExemption) and other witnesses. The statements the Applicant, Mr.Naseer Ahmed, Sayed Asim Naseer and Ghulam Allah Ditta, thewitnesses were recorded on oath and record of DLD-i, Niaz Begwas consulted. The documents produced by the Applicant, Patwari Halqaand his statement was examined, and photocopies thereof were placed onthe reference file. The notice for appearance to Ghulam Hussain s/o Amir Aliwas served but he failed to turn up. Mr Allah Ditta, GPA, was reported to haspassed away on 04.02.2016 as per the death certificate produced by his son,Ghulanm AIL Notice to Ch. Muhamad Nawaz slo Ch. Wali Muhammad, a

Page 1 of 14

witness to the Agreement to Sell, remained unserved since he had shiftedfrom the given address. File of the plot JTNBII-5047, attached with thereference by the Directorate Land Development-I, (hereafter referred to asplot file) was examined.

2. According to the reference filed by the LDA;

"One Mr. Ghulam Hussain Slo Amir Ali claimed to be owner ofland measuring 20K-02M falling in khasra No.11588, 11602, 11606 ofMouza Niaz Baig, Lahore on the basis of mutation No. 34485.Exemption was granted through negotiation by the then DLD in favorof Mr. Ghulam Hussain in shape of six plots measuring one kanal each.Allocation committee allocated plots No. 955, 957 and 975 of Block-Land plots No. 585, 596 and 599 of Block-H/3 (measuring one kanaleach). Allocation proceedings are available at para 67/N of file No. JT­NB-II-5047.

Before issuance of allocation letters Ghulam Hussain S/o AmeerAli appointed Mr. Allah Ditta Slo Nizam Din as his General Power ofAttorney which is registered by Sub Registrar, Model Town, Lahorevide document No. 2986, book No. 04, volume No. 5923 dated 30-05-1994 (certified copy available at page 63-69/1C in the instant file).Therefore, allocation letter of plot No. 955 Block-L, M.A. Johar TownLahorewas issued in favour of Ghulam Hussain Slo Ameer Ali throughAllah Ditta (GPA) vide letter No. JTINB-11/5047/7859dated 31.10.1994(Page 000051/C). Final Demand Noticewas issued vide NO.647dated03.11.1994 which was deposited LDA Accounts on 06.11.1994(page-000061/C). Exemption letter of the said plot was issued videletter No. JT/NB-11/5047/8454 dated 13-11-1994 (Page 000063/C) andthe possession order of the said plotwas issued on 14.11.1994at page000075/C and physical possession of said plot was handed over toExemptee through attorney Mr. Allah Ditta on 1 11-1994 in light ofpossession order dated 14-11-1994 vide No. 0/784 dated15.11.1994. Later- on plot No. 955 Block-L,was transferred by GhulamHussain S/o Ameer Ali through his Attorney Allah Ditta in favour of Mst.Naheed Naseer, Ms. Haniya ,Syed Asim Naseer, Syed AizazNaseer, Syed Ahmad Naseer & Miss. Amina Naseer Wife, sons anddaughter of Syed Naseer Ahmad vide letter NO.JT-NB-11/5047/967dated 18.01.1995. (page 000135/C).

3. In light of reports obtained from different quarters, LDA submittedfollowing facts and comments regarding the instant

i). "Gross irregularity has been found in the case as exemption grantedagainst the land falling in well-known khatooni No. 973 Mouza Niaz

Page 2 of 14

Baig, Lahore, which belongs to Federal Government and allotment ofland in the said khatooni was illegally granted. As the AssistantCommissioner (City), Lahore in report submitted to AdditionalDistrict Collector, Lahore vide memo No. 896 dated 24.11.2014(available at page 243-251/C) stated that most of the allotments inkhatooni No. 973 were made on basis of Land Reforms from theland which was already acquired by Lahore Development Authority forM.A. Johar Town Scheme while the scope of Land Reforms is nothingelse but allotment of agriculture land land less tenants.

ii), Exemption was granted through negotiation and negotiationagreement was executed by then Director Land Development, Mr.Manzar Hayat on 31.05.1994 against the whereas powers ofnegotiation not vest with him. Hence, transgression of powers isinvolved in the instant case as the power negotiation vest with theAuthorityl Vice Chairman, LDA.

iii). At para 43/N (main file) Revenue staff reported that double exemptionhas been granted against khasra No. 11606 Mouza Niaz baig, Lahoreas another claimant namely Booda Slo Muhammad Boota has alsoobtained exemption against said land in khasra No. 11606in (File No. JTNBII-5910).

iv). Letters were written to Revenue authorities for deciding the fate ofownership of Mr. Ghulam Hussain. The Additional District Collector,Lahore vide his office letter No. HVC/2698 dated 18.05.2015 (page-237/C) intimated that mutation No. 34485 favour of Mr. GhulamHussian, bogus and has been cancelled. Hence, it clear that Mr.Ghulam Hussain obtained exemption fraudulently on the basis ofbogus ownership documents/title.

v). The all six plots allocated in No. JTNBII-5047 are at primelocations and created doubt about genuineness of the allocationproceedings. Plot No. 955 Block-L, M.A. Town is situated oncorner of 45 meter wide road opposite to construction hotel nearexpo center.

vi). The status of plots No. 955 Block L in possession register and at sitewas sought from Directorate of Management-I, LDA.Concernedbranch has reported at para 1 30/N that possession of plot washanded over to Mr. Ghulam through Allha Ditta and thereis double story building stand constructed site which is used ascommercial in shape of office.

30f14

vii). Verification of dues from Directorate of Revenue has been obtainedwhich is available at para 120/N. As per report all dues including 1st &final demand notices for development charges and transfer fees NOCetc. have been verified.

viii). Report of Town Planning Directorate is available at para 134/N whichshows that building plan of plot NO.955 Block-L, was sanctioned on03.07.1995 in the name of Mst Naheed Naseer etc. and completioncertificate has also been issued on 04.04.1

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

x), Instant file is not includedpublished in 2009.

xi). Personal hearing has been granted to applicant and recorddocuments in her possession along with utility bills at para NO.14/N.

the list of missing files which were

Consequent upon the cancellation of Mutation No. 34485 by theAdditional District Collector, Lahore the ownership of Exemptee Mr.Ghulam Hussain has been cancelled, therefore exemption of plot no.955 Block-L, M.A. Johar Town, Lahore is liable to be cancelled. ShowCause Notice was issued to transferee of no. 955 Biock-L, Mst.Naheed Naseer etc. vide this office letter dated 27.07.2013 (Page169/C). In response to Show Cause Notice, Mst Naheed Naseer filedcivil suit before the court of Farhan Shakoor Civil Judge, Lahorewhich is pending. Now Mst. Naheed Naseer through OWO referenceNO.2234443 dated 08.12.2015 has applied for placing her case beforethe LOA Commission for Bona-fide purchasers."

As mentioned above Exemption Scrutiny Committee has recommended toplace the case before this Commission. Applicants submitted a certifiedcopy which shows that under the order of Civil Qamar-un-Nisa the suitpending in the court was dismissed on 28.07.2018 as withdrawn. (Mark VIII)

transferred in her and all her children's name. children have issuedSpecial Power Attorney in her to case. She identified herand her children's signatures on the application. Syed NaseerAhmad slo Syed Mushtaq Ahmad stated on oath the plot was purchasedby him and was transferred in the name of his and children. His son,Syed Asim Nasser, inspected the site. verification of record he got the

4of14

4. Mrs. Naheed Naseer wlorecorded on oath contended thatMA Johar Town were conducted

Ahmad in her statementproceedings Plot No. 955 Block L,her husband and her son but it was

help of a senior officer, Ch. Sharif Ahmad, who was a Member of Board ofRevenue at that time. He deputed a Tehsildar to verify the record whoreported back that the title of the land was correct. For purchase of the plot,an Agreement to Sell was recorded (Mark-I). The plot was purchased for anamount of Rs.10,OO,0001- and the payment was made by his son Syed AsimNaseer. The building completion certificate was issued by LDA vide letterNo. BA/399-JT/221 dated 06.04.1998 and commercialization of buildingwasaccorded by LDA on 05.04.2011. admitted that did not meet Mr. AllahDitta, GPA of Mr. Ghulam Hussain the original exempttee. He produced acopy of statement containing expenditure incurred on purchase of plot andrent received from the building. Syed Naseer in his statement claimedthat he met M. Allah Ditta and the plot was purchased against a sum of Rs.10,00,0001- The sale amount was paid lump sum. The Agreement to Sellwas scribed which was signed by him and Mr. Allah Ditta. At the time ofpurchase the file of LDA was checked and there was no defect in the landtitle at that time. Mr. Ghulam Ali slo Allah Ditta RIo 62 Huma Block AllamaIqbal Town in statement informed that his father had passed away (copyof death certificate Mark-VI. He could recognize the signature of hisfather on document but he recognized photo available in the file and on copyof ID card placed in the file.

5. The perusal of file No. JTNBI1/5047(Main of Exemption) revealedthat Mr. Ghulam Hussain slo Ameer Ali Hanjarwal, Niaz Baig filed anapplication on 01 1992 requesting for of plot in lieu of his landacquired falling in khasra Nos. 11588min, 11602min, and 11606minmeasuring 20K-02M. In the file, original letter of Consolidation Officercircle Lahore addressed to LAC, dated 12.1991, (available atpage 00007) informed that through Mutation No. 34485 land falling in KhasraNo. 11606 (08K-16M), 11588 (00K-11M) and 11 (10K-15M) measuring20K-02M land been transferred to Mr. Ghulam Hussain slo Ameer Ali.The attested copy of Mutation No. 34485, sanctioned on 07.11.1991,available in file at page 00011/c, also shows that land falling in Khasra No.11588min, 11602min and 11606 min was transferred to him in exchange ofhis land which was previously owned 'Mushtraqa Malkan'. This mutationwas sanctioned in pursuance of the Consolidation Officer dated03.10.1991. Previously, vide Mutation No. 19,sanctioned on 27.07.1991,the land measuring 70K-00M falling khasra No. 11588, 11602, 13010,13011, 13001 130018 and 130019 was transferred to Mushtraqa Malkanfrom Provincial Government. Vide his report at para 28/N, Patwari LACreported that he had visited the Patwar khana, Mouza Niaz Beg, alongwithQanungo and Tehsildar and found no. was correct. Thepermission to grant exemption through negotiation was granted by DirectorGeneral LD on 17.10.1994. Mr. Ghulam Hussain was allocated six plots

50f14

No. 955,957, 975 Block L and plots No. 585, 596 and 599 in Block H-3measuring 420 sqm measuring each. (para 57-58/N of plot file). Theexemption of plot No. 955, Block L, Johar Town was issued vide letter No.JT/BN-1I/5047/845 dated 13.11.1994. plot was transferred in the nameof Applicants on 18.01.1995

6. This Commission has already examined the revenue record inReference No. 1/2015 titled Humaid Salim VS LOA and hadnoted following observations as far concerned:

"6. Mr. Nisar Ahmad, Patwari, LAC Branch, LOAproduced theaward record and it was observed Khasra numbers 11588, 11602and 11606 being part of Khatooni No. 973 were owned by theProvincialGovernment and award thereof was announced as theseKhasra numbers were to be purchased by LOA from the ProvincialGovernment as per Government policy. Scheme plan superimposedwith Khasra numbers was and it was observed that theabove mentioned Khasra numbers fall in M Johar Town Scheme.The Consolidation authorities had no right to allot the above mentionedKhasra numbers, being part .A. Johar Scheme as well as inthe ownership of the ProvincialGovernment, any other person underthe Consolidation proceedings. Halqa Niaz Baig wassummoned with the relevant record. The original record produced byhim was examined and copies of Mutation Nos. 31320, 33018 to33021, 34484 and 34485 were obtained and placed on the referencefile. Original Mutation Book No by the Patwari HalqaNiaz Baig was examined. thereof that two pages i.e.mutation No. 33019 and 33020, do not bear book number and havebeen inserted in the book by removing the original pages whereas,pages of all other Mutations including Mutations Nos. 33018 and33021 have printed book No. 20433 Mutation No. 33019dated 29-08-1991 available the book Parat Patwar and the

19 27-07-1991 in the plotfile are different. The No. 33019 (whichalso is bogus on the available Patwari's record, isregarding transfer of 30/1 Khasra No. 7406 measuring 6Kanal and 12 Marla from Mst. Begum to Altaf Hameed. Butas per copy of the said on plot file No. JT/NB-1115047,Khasra No. 11588, 11 along with other KhasraNos, were transferred from Khatooni No. to Mushtarika Khata onthe basis of order dated 1991 purportedly passed by theCollector Consolidation, Lahore. Mr. Gulam Hussain with reference tothe said Mutation No. 33019 dated 991 was allotted videMutation No. 34485 dated 07-11-1 1 numbers 11588, 11602and 11606 on the orders of Consolidation dated 03.10.1991. In

6of14

view of the above facts, the plot No. JT/NB-1I/5047 and JT/NB-11/5047-C were obviously constructed on the basis of bogus revenuerecord as utation No. 33019 and Mutation No. 34485 both werebogus. But the LOA could not detect the fraud till 22.05.2014 whenthe report Additional District Collector was received whichdisclosed that mutation No. 34485 being bogus was cancelled on 26-07-2014."

7. The applicants, however, have contended that they were innocentbuyers and had purchased the exemption rights in respect of Plot No.955,Block L, Johar Town on payment of a valuable consideration. At the time ofthe transaction, there was nothing record of LOA or the RevenueDepartment indicating any fraud in respect of the land against whichexemptionwas granted. The Vendor also handed over possession of the plotto the applicant, which still is in their possession. It was the responsibility ofthe Revenue Department to prevent the fraud as Mutation number34485 was intact, there could not circumstancecalling for any inquiry by the applicant They a hefty amount forpurchasing exemption rights from Original Exemptee in good faith. Itcannot, therefore, be presumed that applicants were a party in thecommission of or in connivance at the fraud. Although the exemption wastransferred by LOA i.e, the real owner of the plot the fact remains thetransfer was conditionally and accepted thoseconditionswithout any objection.

8. LOA has alleged that the no more awardee dueto cancellation of Mutation No. 34485 Mouza Niaz Baig and the exemptionwas granted in lieu of the land in Khatooni No. 973 of Mouza NiazBaig. The permission of negotiation was conducted by Director LandDevelopment whereas the power negotiation vested with the Vice­Chairman. LOA alleged that notification which specifically debarredDirector Land Development to negotiate the agreement between theExemptee and LOA. However, of the file shows that permission fornegotiationwas granted by Director LOA 66/N). The mutation,although termed as bogus, was not cancelled nor was there any report ofbeing bogus on plot file at the by Applicants. Despitethe allegation of fraud, LOA has the exemption orderdated 13.11.1994 nor the claim applicants as fide purchasers. Therecord and evidence exhibit that plot, constructed abuilding and LOA issued building At the time oftransfer, there was nothing in indicated about anydispute over the ownership of Commission despitethe alleged cancellation of land ownership of the original Exemptee, in viewof Sub-Section (4) of Section 32 Act, 2013 readwith Sub-section of Section 32 of (ibid) to consider the present

7of14

reference to resolve the dispute. The above-mentioned provisions of the Actare 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 considerationl resolution and decision if a primafacie case made out."

"(5) The Commission shall considerrecommendations on matters pertaining to;

(a) bona fide purchase for value owmq to irregular orfraudulent transaction in respect property, the extent oflegality or illegality of transaction, apportionment ofresponsibility in irregular or fraudulent transaction andtranslation of this responsibility monetary terms andrecommendation such conditions, fines, rate or fix price,retrieval of property and demolition as deemed appropriateaccording to the each case."

make appropriate

9. Exemption the plot was to the Applicants by LOAon thesame terms and condition on which it was held by Exemptee. Relevantportion of transfer letter No. JT/NB-11/5047/968dated 18.01.1995 isreproduced below:

"I am to inform you that the exemption the plot cited above assubject has now been transferred in your name on the terms andconditions it was held by original II

The Applicants accepted the terms and the transfer. Theythemselves signed the endorsement the transfer application (page 0079of plot file No. JT/NB-11/5047)which reads;

"I endorse the above application and if the property is transferred tome, I as successor in interest or shall be subject to allthe conditions and terms contained in Agreement/Exemptionletter between the transferer and the Department Authority."

10. In the affidavit at page 0161 of plot file No. JT/NB-1I/5047,filed with thetransfer set, the Applicants undertook to abide by the terms and conditionsof the exemption of the said plot between the original Exemptee and LOAand to comply with all orders and and instructions etc. in force orissued from time time by the LOA. Therefore, whatever rights have cometo vest in the Applicants, those did not constitute and absolute title in theplot. The Applicants were bound to fulfill the conditions laid down in the

Page 8 of 14

Exemption letter No. JT/NB-II/5047/8454 dated 1 11.1994 issued to theoriginal Exemptee. The Applicants, therefore, must have been aware of thefact that their purchase was subject to the incident those conditions whichare contained in the exemption letter issued by the Authority. The LOA hada right to cancel the allocation/exemption of plot under clause 17 of theExemption Letter JT/NB-II/5047/8454 dated 13.11.1994 which reads;

"That if any stage your title is proved to be defective, theexemption of the plot shall automatically withdrawn and LOAwill be entitled to take over land with structure standingthereon without payment of any damages or compensation. (E & 0are to be taken up at any r

11. Although the exemption rights transferred by LOA i.e, the realowner of the plot, yet the fact that transfer was madeconditionally and the Applicant accepted those conditions without anyobjection. Every purchaser of rights is supposed to haveknowledge that the transaction of purchase is subject to those conditionswhich are contained in the agreement for exemption in the exemptionletter. At this stage the contention of Applicants that they were not awareof the terms and conditions cannot be accepted. being so, the Vendeedespite being innocent buyer cannot raise the plea of protection on theprinciple of section 41 of the Transfer Property 1882 which relates tothe transfer of property by an ostensible owner. In present case it was aconditional sale and the Applicants bound to fulfill the conditionsaccepted by them at the time of of exemption in their favour.Moreover, Applicants' rights being of exemption rights cannotexceed the rights vested in the vendor who was not full owner of the plot anddid not have proprietary rights of plot. Therefore, for acquiring proprietaryrights, the Applicants are subject to conditions the sale as per termsand conditions of exemption.

12. Land for M Johar Town was on the basis ofexemption which means that 30% of land of owners acquired for thescheme was exempted in the of developed and they, on certainspecific terms and conditions, were allocated developed plots equal to theirright of exemption i.e, 30% of their total holding acquired/surrendered. Titleof the exempted is, however, on fulfillment of the terms andconditions of exemption. Therefore, Exemptee not a full owner andexemption letter does not constitute an absolute in the plot. The title ofthe plot remains vested in the LOA till exchange deed is executed. Theabove-mentioned plot was exempted the of Khasra Nos. 11588,11602 and 11606 of Mauza Niaz Baig, falling in Johar Town Scheme.

gof 14

The Applicants were transferred rights subject to the terms andconditions contained in the exemption and were bound to transfer theland against which the exemption was granted, in of LOA by executingan exchange deed after completion of building as per Clause 16 of theexemption letter JT/NB-II/5047/8454 dated 13.11.1994 (pages 000051-52) which reads;

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

13. The defect in the ownership original Exemptee's land or pleaof fraud or irregularities committed the LOA or the Revenue Departmentfunctionaries does not absolve the Applicants from abiding by the terms andconditions of transfer of exemption accepted them, even if the entiretransaction and proceedings before of are proved to befraudulent nor can they raise the of protection on the principle of section41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. case they fulfills the terms andconditions accepted by them at the transfer of exemption, LOA shallbe bound to transfer to them the proprietary rights, notwithstanding the fraudor collusion committed by the LOA officers/officials which the Applicantswere not a party. The original paid development chargeswhich as admitted by LOA have duly verified. The Applicants paidtransfer fee but the price of the plot was not paid by them or theirpredecessors to the LOA and instead the Applicants took upon themselvesto transfer land to LOA by execution an deed. The vendor hasnot paid any of the land nor land to the LOA,therefore, the price paid by the Applicants does not include theprice of the land which was to be LOA in exchange of thesubject plot. The Applicants are liable to transfer the above-mentionedland to the LOA or alternatively in resolve the dispute, to pay theprice of the land the plot for of the plot in his favour.

14. In view position, as the Commission fromthe Revenue , the Applicants entries in the currentRevenue Record wherein the subject available in the nameof Exemptee, cannot transfer LOA, as per terms andconditions of Allocation they, therefore, to acquire proprietaryrights on payment of the price plot development chargesalready paid by original Exemptee). However, if a later stage the entriesin the Jamabandi amended an order or appeal and the land isrestored in the name of original they can claim the refund ofamount.

Page of 14

15. In case the plot had been in name of the Original Exemptee whogot it allocated allegedly on the basis of fraud and collusion, the plot wouldhave been certainly cancelled and he could not have any right for itsregularization. But when the plot was first transferred the applicants, theybecame entitled retain the plot under these proceedings on establishingthat they were bona fide purchasers. The right exemption i.e. to get thetitle of the plot by transferring ownership of above mentioned land, wasconferred by the LOA when the LOA transferred exemption to the Applicantson receipt of transfer fee, therefore, the plot as on 18.01.1995 as perDC's Valuation Table along with for delayed payment, should becharged to them order to resolve dispute as envisaged in sub section(4) of section the LOA (Amendments) Act, 13 which reads:

"(4) The Authority or any officer so authorized by the Authority, on itsown motion or on the application of any , may refer any matterto the Commission for if a primafacie made out."

16. According the DC's valuation table on 29.09.1993 theprice/Marla in M Johar Town prevalent on18. .1995 i.e. the date of 1st

transfer was 000/- up to 10 Marias and 000/- for every Marlaexceeding 10 Marias. Thus, .m. plot comes toRs.5,50,250/-The Applicant's paid LOA Rs.91,160/- on24.05.1994 and 9,690/- on 06.11 1994 as development charges. Sui gascharges paid are not part of the price of plot and similarly the amountspaid subsequently for building period extensions or any additional amountrecovered on account of delayed cannot considered part of thecost of the plot. However, the amount of 1;00, paid as developmentcharges can only considered as part of the of the plot. It was theresponsibility of Applicant as above, to get transferred 03K-07M land to the LOA however as report of Halqa Patwari as well asconfirmed by LOA required land is in the name of the Exemptee .It is the Applicants who failed to by the terms and conditions of theexemption, they are liable pay cost deficient land along withmark up @1 5% annum for as specified in clause 2of the allocation letter dated 3 .10.1 and clause 3 of the exemption letterdated 13.11.1994. On account of their failure fulfill the terms andconditions exemption, they will to pay LOA an amount ofRs.20,42,955/- worked out below:-

Sr. No. Description Amount

1) of the

11of 14

2)

nearest to the date of 1 .TransferExemption i.e. 18.01.1995

Dev. Charges paid on 05.1994

9,6901-

3) Mark up on Dev Charges amounting to 10,446/-RS.91,1601-for the period From24.05.1994 to 18.01.1 (1st Transfer)

4) Charges paid on 11.1994

5) Mark up on Dev Charges amounting to 339/­Rs.96901-for the period from 06.11.1994to 18.01. 1995

In case any error or omission apparent from the face of the record, issubsequently discovered in the above computation, the Commission mayrectify the on its own or an application by either party.

17. From record and the evidence produced by the Applicants itappears that:

I. original Exemptee is no more awardee in the revenue recordcancellation of mutation No. 34485 Mouza Niaz 8aig.

II. time of purchase Applicants was nothing on theof LOA to indicate any suspicious circumstance calling forregarding mutation. Patwari of LAC office, LOA,

along with Muhammad Younas Qanungo and Allah Rakha NaibTehsiidar visited Patwar Khana and reported on 06.05.1992 that

mutation No. 34485 existed and was in order. The mutationwas cancelled on 29.11.2014. Although the mutation has been

6) Total Development charges with

15/-7) Cost of plot landCharges paid)

value -

8) Add mark up for the period 16,04,3401-1st. transfer of

exemption to the date of filing ofapplication (08.12.2015)

9) of plot toto

paid by the 20,42,955/-resolve the

Page 12 of 14

declared bogus, no action has been initiated against theConsolidation Officer or revenue officer involved in the scam.

III. Applicants purchased the plot in good faith after gettingreasonable inquiry conducted from LOA.

IV. Applicants had paid full and fair price of the plot to theVendor for transfer of exemption rights and possession of the

They constructed a building on the plot, whose completioncertificate had been issued by LOA.

Therefore, are held to be a bona fide purchaser of the rights ofexemption g by LOA to the original Exernptee.

18. view of the above discussed facts, the record perused and theevidence examined, recommendations of Commission are as under-

I. Notwithstanding the fact under 17 ibid, the LOA isauthorized to cancel exemption of plot No.955, Block L, M.A.

Town, Lahore, it recommended to resolve the disputeon payment to the LOA by the Applicants an amount of

955/- as worked out above price of the land of thein lieu of the above land which to be surrendered tothe Applicants will be allowed to retain the plot and

right of the will be transferred in favour of the

II. case no appeal is filed the Applicants or by the LOAagainstorder, LOA shall issue, within 30 after the expiry of theprescribed for the or from date of the applicationby the Applicants, whichever is one or two Challansoption of the Applicants for payment of the abovein lump sum or in two quarterly installments.

III. to the payment of the above determined amount byApplicants, the title the Applicants or their successor in

at no stage, shall called in question by LOA and thecases for sanction of building I commercialization,

of NOC, further etc. respect of the above plotprocessed by as per relevant rules/policy in vogue.

iv. I case the Applicants to pay the above amount within sixfrom the date of issuance Challan(s), the LOA

retrieve the plot but without compensation as envisagedClause 17 of the Exemption read with the transferOn retrieval of the plot LOA will refund the development

received with markup @ 1 from the date of theof development charges to the LOA up to the date of.

14

LOA's cheque for the refund amount payable to theApplicants. The amount calculated shall be refunded withinone month of the retrieval of the plot.

v. the Applicants has raised construction on the plot afterapproval of the building plan, he will be entitled, in case of

of plot by receive compensation for theconstruction or any other development made by him asdetermined by the Chief Engineer, UDWing, LOA. However, nocompensation for the structure will be payable in case the

Iding plan was not approved by the competent authority.

VI. plot files in this case have been fabricated on the basis ofMutations No 33019 and 34485, therefore, the above­

mentioned officials of the LOAand the Revenue Department areequally responsible for loss which should be recovered from

after inquiry as per law. LOA, therefore, shall approach theCommissioner Lahore Division Lahore direct the competentauthority to determine the revenue officials who prepared bogus

and proceed against them for and forgery. LOAshallhold an enquiry in this case to pin point the responsible

officers/officials and private personswho allowed exemption andrecover loss caused due to fraud.

Member, LDAC Chairman, LDAC

Announced

17. 2018

Page 14 of 14