BEFORE LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION. Vs.

Transcription

1 BEFORE LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION LAHORE ' PRESENT: Mr. Najam Saeed, Chairman. Mr. Javaid Akhtar, Member. Reference No. 18/2016 Lt. Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali slo Chaudhary Sikandar Ali Rio 95/5 Khurshid Alam Road, Lahore Cantt. 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. Order Lt. Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali slo Chaudhary Sikandar Ali submitted an application at One Window on vide receipt No for filing of reference to the LOA Commission. The Authorized Officer under sub-section (4) of section 32 of the LOA (Amendment) Act, 2013 read with sub-rule (1) of the Rule 7 of the Lahore Development Authority Commission Rules, 2014, referred the case to the Commission which was received on It was entered in the Institution Register at Serial No.18 of File of the plot No. 3-G, M. A. Johar Town Scheme, attached with the reference by the Land Directorate-I (hereinafter referred to as plot file) was examined. 2. Notices were issued to the OLD I, applicant and the Revenue Officer, Mouza Niaz Baig for production of Revenue record related to Khasra Nos. 1529, 2751, and The Commission itself visited the Patwar Khana of Niaz Baig and collected the copies of record available there. Notices were issued to District Coordination Officer, Lahore for production of the record which was not available in Patwar Khana. But record was not produced. Therefore, the Commission finalized the recommendations only on the basis of the record produced before the Commission. 3. LOA in the reference has contended that the ownership of the exemptee Mst. Falak Naz was examined in the light of reports of LAC, LOA regarding award and the reports received from Consolidation Department, '~ 1 c~. \().O~ l6

2 dated 20-0B-2013 ~9.. a~~ According to said reports, one Mst Ramzan Bibi was onglnal awardee/owner of land measuring 03K-OBM in rhasra No (01K-09M) and (01K-19M) along with some other and In other Khasra numbers. Mst. Ramzan Bibi sold land measuring 03K- 06M to Mst. Falak Naz out of Khasra No. 1529, 2791, and Proportionate share of Mst. Falak Naz in Khasra No and was 1K~02M-48 sft. and the rest of her share was in Khasra Nos and 2791 which were not acquired/utilized by LOA in M.A. Johar Town Scheme. 4.. Lt. Col. (Retd.) Zulfiqar Ali, the applicant appeared in and his statement on oath was recorded. He contended that he purchased plot No.3, Block-G, M.A. Johar Town from Mst. Falak Naz w/o Firdous Ali Shah. The purchase was made through a property dealer Adil Butt. He claimed that in order to check the record of plot he went to LOA office. One clerk namely Mustafa and one head clerk showed him the record and told that record was correct. Mst. Falak Naz also gave him the original copy of sale deed under which Ramzan Bibi had sold a portion of her of land to Falak Naz. (He presented the original sale deed which was perused and a copy thereof was retained in the reference file). He further stated that he paid Rs. 50,000 in cash and remaining Rs. 8, 50, 000 were paid through cheques to Mst. Falak Naz in the presence of her husband. On the next date of hearing, Lt. Col.(Retd.) Zulfiqar produced the counterfoils of cheques, statement of payment and copy of receipt of Rs. 50,000 dated issued by Firdous Ali Shah, the husband of Mst. Falak Naz. However, in the sale deed No Bahi No.1, Book No dated the price of the plot has been declared Rs. 70,000/- only. The page numbers of the Book are not mentioned on the copy of the deed available at pages No In view of the fact that in the sale deeds true amount of transaction is not reflected and in view of the payments made by cheques and receipts issued by Firdus Ali Shah the claim of the applicant that he purchased the plot for Rs.9,00,000/- is accepted. 5. The applicant further pleaded that a compromise was effected between Mst. Falak Naz and Mr. Muhammad Ali on and Mr. Muhammad Ali admitted the claim of Mst. Falak Naz on Khasra Nos and and plot No.3, Block-G, Johar Town and the same compromise was made part of the decree of the Civil Court dated In the para C of statement of Muhammad Ali filed before the court as defendant NO.9 in the suit titled Mst. Falak Naz vs LOA and others, he admitted that "it has been decided that the defendant no. 9 would never claim any right or title over plot No.3, Block-G, M.A. Johar Town Scheme Lahore owned by the plaintiff Mst. Falak Naz which was exempted in her favour by the Lahore Development \"'J \0-0,>.1(, - \0 Jtl?J 16

3 measuring 03 Kanal 6 Marla and 150 ft" ---/ decree of the Civil Court in this case MS. As a res.u/t of the ord~r and the exemption over 03 Kanal 06 Marla a~d ~~~:;~~:" had ceded his claim of 6. The applicant further stated that on the basis of a report of Collector ConSOlidation,the Commissioner Lahore also held on that M~tatlon No is intact and the LAC, LOA's order dated regarding amendment in award has become ineffective. During proceeding before the Commissioner, the Collector Consolidation in his report has concluded that: ' "Rarnzan Bibi sold her land to Mohammad Sarwar slo Abdul Ghafoor on and to Falak Naz in Khasra nos and on When the mutation No was sanctioned on the basis of sale deed dated ,there was no entry in the revenue record of pre-emption degree dated If the decree of preemption would have entered and land mutated in the name of Mohammad Ali, double sale would have not been executed. The entry of decree of pre-emption was recorded after ten years which shows the malafide of Muhammad Ali. The registered sale deed in the name of Falak Naz has not been challenged. Hence the mutation No in the revenue record is still intact." 7. Examination of the record revealed that plot No.3, Block-G, M.A. Johar Town was exempted to Mst. Falak Naz in lieu of land measuring 03K- 06 M-150 Sft falling in Khasra No and Mouza Niaz Baig. She purchased 03K-06 M-150sft. land out of Khasra No (1OK-15M) vide registered sale deed NO.20499,Bahi No.1 dated , from one Mst. Ramzan Bibi who was, as per record of Consolidation Department, owner of land in Moza Niaz Baig in Khatooni No. 690 (old No. 1139) comprising Khasra number measuring 07K-07M and in Khatooni No (old No 2789) measuring 26K-14M comprising Khasra numbers 2751 (03K13M), 1529 (03K-01M), (01K-09M), (01K-19M), (05K-17M) and (10K-15M). Subsequently a corrigendum dated was prepared whereby Mst. Falak Naz, instead of land in Khasra 8293, was given 03 Kanal 06 Marla 150 sft. land out of Khasra Nos. 8273/13216, 1993/2751, 1095/1529 and 8396/13259 measuring 11K-02 Marla as per copy thereof available on the plot file (page No ). Mutation No was sanctioned on the basis of the sale deed dated without any reference to the corrigendum. Mutation No was sanctioned on transferring 66/202 share from Ramzan Bibi to Falak Naz from Khasra Nos , 1029, and Later the Civil Court passed a decree dated in a case titled Mst. Ramzan Bibi vs Falak Naz whereby specific Khasra numbers measuring 01K-19M and Khasra

4 ~. 6~ r number measuring 01K-09M were given to Mst. Falak Naz who had agreed that she would only claim area of 03K-06M in Khasra numbers and and would not have any claim against Khasra numbers 1529 and 2751 (Page ). Mst. Ramzan Bibi accepted claim of Falak Naz fraudulently against the Khasra No and as she did not disclose that she had already sold the entire land to Muhammad Sarwar and Bilqis Barkat. However, to give effect to this decree Mutation No was sanctioned on (page No ). Thus, in the Revenue record Mst. Falak Naz became owner of land measuring 03K-06M in Khasra number and while Ramzan Bibi became owner of land 06K- 14M in Khasra numbers 1529 and 2751which were not included in the award of the land acquired for M.A. Johar Town Housing Scheme. Thereafter, the award made by the LAC, LOA was amended in the name of Mst Falak Naz on in respect of land measuring 03K-06M-150 sft (page ). 8. One Muhammad Ali filed a pre-emption suit which was decided in his favour by the court of Ch. Muhammad Hussain and the land was mutated in his favour vide Mutation No dated The award in respect of above mentioned Khasra numbers was further amended in the favour of Muhammad Ali by then LAC, LOA on Then another consent decree was passed on in suit No. 356/1 of 1989 by Mr. Muhammad Latif, Civil Judge, 1st Class, Lahore wherein Mr. Muhammad Ali slo Ghulam Muhammad conceded the right of Mst. Falak Naz in respect of the above mentioned land measuring 03 Kanal 06 Marla 150 sft. in Khasra No. 8273/13216 and 8396/13259/Plot No.3, Block-G, M.A. Johar Town. As this decree was obtained by deleting the necessary parties i.e. the LOA officers defendants No. 1-4, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, (Consolidation), Lahore, defendant No.5, the Consolidation Officer, Tehsil Lahore, defendant NO.6 Mst. Ramzan Bibi dlo Muhammad Jan, defendant No.7, Muhammad Sarwar, defendant No.8, it was certainly a collusive decree. This decree does not appear to have been implemented in the revenue record and mutation No was not amended by reducing the ownership of Mr. Muhammad Ali by 03 Kanal 06 Marla 150 sft. in Khasra No and and instead subsequently the award of the rest of the land measuring 04 Marla in Khasra No was also amended in the favour of Muhammad Ali by the order of Commissioner Lahore Division dated In this way the award of complete Khasra Nos and presently stands in the name of Muhammad Ali to whom exemption stands granted and exempted plots have been further transferred. 9. Mst Falak Naz filed application to the LOA vide diary number 6350 for exemption of plot in lieu of land in Khasra Nos and 13216

5 \- 6_cv on but the process on the application was started on This shows that her application was processed after the amendment of award by LAC on as a result of the decree of the Civil Court dated without checking the Revenue record and digging out the fact that Mst. Ramzan Bibi had already sold her land in excess of her ownership In the above mentioned two Khatooni. However, LOA allocated plot No.3, Block-G, MA -Johar Town Scheme (Page No ) and allowed exemption to Mst. Falak Naz on against Khasra No and measuring 03K-06M-150 sft. 10. Meanwhile as per record available certain corrections were made on the basis of mutation Nos & whereby Mst. Falak Naz was given only 01K-15 M share in the land of Mst. Ramzan Bibi. The genuineness of the order and the basis on which Robkar was issued could not be ascertained because the original order of the Collector was not made available by the Revenue Officials. But, the title of Mst. Falak Naz in the above Khasra numbers became disputed. The above order was challenged by Mst Falak Naz through a civil suit No. 356/1 on titled Falak Naz vs LOA and others, wherein Mst. Ramzan Bibi, Mohammad Sarwar and Mohammad Ali were respondents at No.7, 8 and 9 respectively. The subject of the suit was as follows: "Suit for declaration with consequential relief that plaintiff is absolute owner of the plot No.3, Block-G, Mohammad Ali Johar Town Scheme, Lahore and further declaration to the effect that the letter issued by the defendant No. 2 i.e. Land Acquisition Collector regarding the cancellation of plot no 3 Block G Mohammad Ali Johar Town is illegal, inoperative and without lawful authority which was mutated by Consolidation Officer the defendant NO.6and the direction of which direction was given by Ch. Nusrat Hayat Additional Deputy Commissioner for the review of the mutations of the Plaintiff mutation are illegal inoperative, without lawful authority and forged one, having no sanctity in the eye of the law and having no effect against the rights of the Plaintiff with consequential relief of cancelling the same." The title of the suit shows that LAC had cancelled the plot of Mst Falak Naz although there is nothing on Plot file regarding the cancellation of plot. On the other hand the building period was extended upto before transfer of plot to present applicant. During the proceedings in the above said civil suit on , by deleting the all other defendants with the approval of the court, Falak Naz Plaintiff and Defendant No. 9 Mohammad Ali filed following statement:

6 0~ d) Aft~r due deliberations between the Plaintiff and the defendant - No: 9 It ha~ been decided that the defendant NO.9 would never claim any rrght orthe title over plot No.3 Block G, MA Johar Town Scheme Lahore owned by the plaintiff Mst. Falak Naz which was exempte.d in.her favour by the Development Authority against her ownerstnp In Khasra Nos. 8373/13216 and 8396/13259 mesuring 3 kanals 6 Marias and 150 sq.ft. e) The defendant 9 also consented to pass a decree to this effect that Plaintiff is owner in possession of the plot No. 3 Block-G, M.A. Johar Town Scheme Lahore. Thus Mohammad Ali who became owner of land because of pre-emption right after mutation Nos ceded his rights over the land purchased by Falak Naz in 1979 against which plot No.3, Block-G in M.A. Johar town scheme was exempted. He also consented before the court that he will not make any claim against this land and the plot. The vendor Mst. Ramzan Bibi and Mr. Muhammad Ali both admitted the claim of Mst. Falak Naz and she was accepted as the owner of 03 K-06M land in Khasra Nos and but subsequently Muhammad Ali completely ignoring the consent decree got the entire land in Khasra Nos , 13259,13269 and mutated in his name vide mutation No and He got exemption and disposed of the plots exempted. In case Muhammad Ali had not claimed the above mentioned khasra numbers and the above mentioned mutations had been amended, only then Mst. Falak Naz would have been entitled to 03 K-06 M land in the two Khasra Nos. Mst. Falak Naz or her successor in interest i.e. the present applicant has not challenged the mutations No & 41016, therefore, presently she cannot claim the ownership of the said land in Khasra Nos and Upshot of the above discussion is that Mst. Ramzan Bibi was owner of land in Mouza Niaz Baig in Khatooni No. 690 (old No. 1139) comprising Khasra number measuring 07K-07M and in Khatooni No (old No 2789) measuring 26K-14M comprising Khasra numbers 2751 (03K13M), 1529 (03K-01M), (01K-09M), (01K-19M), (05K-17M) and (10K-15M). She sold vide sale deed No. 873 dated her total land in Khatooni No. 690 comprising Khasra No measuring 07K-07M and 264/400 share measuring 13K-04M from Khatooni No out of Khasra No , 13259, and to Muhammad Sarwar. She again sold 10 Kanalland out of out of Khatooni No to Mst. Bilqis Barkat wdlo Barkat Ali on Thus she sold an excess area to the extent of 03K-04M. She again sold to Mst. Falak Naz another area of 03K-06M out of Khasra Nos and in 1979 when she had already transferred her entir~ holding inciudin: these Khasra ~ to Mst. Bilqis ~~O"'(b ~~16

7 Sarkat and Mr Muham d S.. ma arwar. The present applicant can only be held entitled to hold the exemption rights in the above mentioned plot if he gets the entnes In the revenue record changed and gets the land transferred to LOA fro.mm.st.falak Naz Otherwise, he cannot be held to be entitled to the exemption nghts in the plot T~e following issues need to be thrashed out through a thorough detailed enquiry by the LOA and the Revenue Department; a. Whether Mst. Ramzan Bibi sold land to Mst. Bilqis Barkat and Mr. Muhammad Sarwar in violation of Section 24 of the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance,1960 and as such it was an i"egal transaction or Mst. Ramzan Bibi was ignorant of the transaction which was made fraudulently against the her back. b. In case the above mentioned two transactions were genuine, then certainly Mst. Ramzan Bibi has committed fraud by re-selling the land to Mst. Falak Naz, Mr.Riaz ul Haque, Mst. Shamim Akhtar, Naseem Akhtar and others, which she had already sold in 1976 and as such she is liable to criminal action along with her Attorneys who disposed of the land. c. When the LOA had already granted exemption to Mst. Falak Naz against Khasra Nos and 132S9, then why the claim of Mr. Muhammad Ali was accepted ignoring the consent decree dated 21.OS.1990which was already on the record of the LOA. d. From the note of LAC staff at paras no in File no. 480 JTNB I at sheet No (page 16-18) it appears that Mohammad Ali who got land through pre-emption suits has got the exemption of 27K- 07M land in files no. JNB1 287, JNBI 291 and JNBI 480. While Ramzan Bibi, Falak Naz, Naseem Irshad, Naseem Akhtar, Nizam Din, Raza ul Haq, Aziz ur Rehman and Shahida Parvin also got exemption against 23K-12M land for same khasra numbers in files no. JTNBI 147 JTNBI 8, JTNBI481, JTNBI10, JTNBI228, JTNBI 219, JTNBI19, JTNBI199 and JTNBI 148. As such against the 27K-07M land acquired by LOA exemption has been granted against SOK-19M land. The allocation, exemption and allotment of plots in all above mentioned files need detail enquiry and fixation of responsibility for irregular allotment of plots. 13. Be that as it may, despite the alleged fraud/collusion, the Commission in view of sub section (4) of section 32 of the LOA (Amendments) Act, 2013 read with sub-section (S) of Section 32 of the Act (ibid) has to consider the present reference to resolve the dispute. The above mentioned provisions of the Act are reproduced below:- ~;JJ ~b ~ '~'O-S:l

8 ,- ~1 "(4) The Authority or any officer so authorized by the Authority on its own motion ~r ~n the application of any person, may refer any matter to the Commission for consideration, resolution and decision if a prima facie case ISmade out." "(5) The C~mmission shall consider and make appropriate recommendations on matters pertaining to; (a) bona fide purchase for value owing to irregular or fraudulent ~rans~ction in respect of property, the extent of legality or ~IIegalltyof the transaction, apportionment of responsibility in Irregular or fraudulent transaction and translation of this responsibility into monetary terms and recommendation of such conditions, fines, rate or fix price, retrieval of property and demolition as deemed appropriate according to the nature of each case." 14. Although LOA has claimed that plot No. 3-G, M. A. Johar Town Scheme Sarwar Ali on the basis of defect in the ownership of Mst. Falak Naz is liable to cancellation yet it has not challenged the transfer proceedings of the exemption of the plot in favour of the present applicant. However, exemption of the plot was transferred to the applicant by LOA on the same terms and conditions on which it was held by the original exemptee, as per transfer letter No. JT/NB-1/8/5799 dated (page ). The transfer application dated (page of plot file) also contains the following endorsement verified by the applicant; "I endorse the above application and if the property is transferred to me, I as successor in interest or (assignee) shall be subject to all the conditions and terms contained in the Agreement/Exemption letter between the transferor and the Lahore Department Authority." Therefore, whatever rights had come to vest in the applicant, those did not constitute full and absolute title in the plot. The applicant was bound to fulfill the conditions laid down in the allocation letter No. JT/NB-1/8/6835 dated (page000061/c) read with the exemption letter No, JT/NB- 1/8/7853dated (page /C). The applicant, therefore, was well aware of the fact that his purchase was subject to the incident of those conditions which are contained in the above mentioned exemption letters. According to the terms and conditions of exemption, the LOA had a right to cancel the allocation/exemption of plot under clause 17 of the Exemption Letters which reads; (b) "That if at any stage your title is proved to be defective, the exemption of the PIO: shall s:and automaticall withdra~a (D.oS (c \.6) J ~ is) [6

9 ..~. 0i1) ~III be entitled to take over the land along with structure standing ereon without payment of any damages or compensation. (E & 0 are to be taken up at any stage.) 15. Although the exemption was transferred by LOA i.e. the real own~r. of the plot, yet the fact remains that the transfer was made conditionally and the applicant accepted those conditions without any objection Every purchaser of exemption rights is supposed to have kn~wledge that the transaction of purchase is subject to those conditions which are ~ontained in the agreement for exemption or in the exemption letter. At this stage the contention of the applicant that he was not aware of the terms and conditions cannot be accepted. This being so, the vendee despite being innocent buyer cannot raise the plea of protection on the principle of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which relates to the transfer of property by an ostensible owner. In the present case it was a conditional sale and the applicant is bound to fulfill the conditions accepted by him at the time of transfer of exemption in his favour. Moreover, applicant's rights being vendee of exemption rights cannot exceed the rights vested in the vendor who was not full owner of the plot and did not had proprietary rights of the plot. Therefore, for acquiring proprietary rights the applicant is subject to the conditions of the sale as per terms and conditions of exemption. 16. Land for M.A. Johar Town Scheme was acquired on the basis of exemption which means that 30% of the land of owners was exempted which was to be returned to the owner on certain specific terms and conditions, in the form of developed plot equal to their right of exemption. The LOA has not transferred proprietary rights of the plot even to the original exemptee nor can the subsequent purchaser of exemption claim proprietary rights just because the transfer has been made by the LOA. At the best he is purchaser of the conditional rights of the vendor which despite the fraud can be protected. Title of the exempted plot, even after transfer of exemption, remains vested in the LOA till fulfillment of the terms and conditions of exemption. The defect in the ownership of the original exemptee's land or plea of fraud or irregularities committed by the LOA or by the Revenue Department functionaries does not absolve the applicant from abiding by the terms and conditions of the transfer of exemption accepted by him. Unless the terms and conditions accepted by him at the time of transfer of exemption are fulfilled, the LOA is not bound to transfer title of the plot to him. 17. The original exemptee paid development charges only and in lieu of the price of land of the plot, he was supposed to transfer 03K-06 Marla land to LOA by execution of an exchange deed. The present applicant also did not pay the price of the land of the plot to the LOA. he title of Mst. Falak

10 ~v Kanal 06-Marla land to the LOA ~h s e IS.not In a position to transfer 03 Naz a/so proved to be defective a d he I. con:itions of transfer of exempti~n. ;h:p;:~:~a~dccbe:~~~ ~een~:~m~~~~ ven or was supposed to be determined keeping in view the terms and conditions of exemption/transfer. At this stage he cannot deny the right of the LOA to cancel the plot in terms of clause 17 of the Exemption Letter No JT/~B-1!8/7.853dated The title of Mst. Falak Naz in the land against which exemption was granted will remain defective unless it is proved that sale in favour of Mr. Muhammad Sarwar and further transfer to Mr. Muhammad Ali on the basis of pre-emption decree was fraudulent or alternatively on the basis of the consent decree the ownership of Mr. Muhammad Ali is reduced by 03 Kanal 06 Marla and it is transferred to LOA from the name of Mst. Falak Naz. But in view of the facts of the case, it does not appear to be possible without protracted litigation as Mr. Muhammad Ali has sold those plots exempted in lieu of the said land. In the circumstance of the case the LOA is entitled to take over the plot along with structure standing thereon, by cancelling the exemption granted to him. However, in order to resolve the dispute, the applicant will have to pay for transfer of title of the plot in his favour by the LOA, the price of the land of the plot worked out on the basis of a formula discussed hereinafter as applied in other similar case. 18. In order to avoid cancellation of the exemption and resolve the dispute, this Commission considers that the applicant should pay to the LOA the price of the plot excluding development charges in lieu of the 03 K-06 Marla land. However, it will be highly unreasonable to ask the applicant to pay the present market price of the plot. Therefore, working has been made on the basis of two ~C's valuation tables; the valuation table in vogue when the exemption was transferred for the first time and the present valuation table. The applicant will be required to pay the amount whichever is lower. If the plot is cancelled in terms of clause 17 of the exemption letter, the LOA will sell it at its present market price. But considering the fact that the applicant is a bonafide purchaser of the exemption rights of the plot, which were transferred to him by the LOA itself, all that is required of him is to fulfill the terms and conditions of transfer. As he does not appear to be a party in the fraud committed by Mst. Ramzan Bibi orland Mr. Muhammad Ali, this Commission has to resolve the dispute between him and the LOA. 19. According to the ~C's valuation table notified on which was nearest to the date of 1st transfer of exemption by the LOA i.e , the price per Marla in M.A. Johar Town, is RS.30,000 per Marla on the front for ten Marias and RS.25,000 per Marla for the remaining area. Thus price of sq.m. plot comes to Rs. 4,88,624/-. The.. '..~ t<!:lr~{\ [6 - > (0. 0s Lb l

11 ~, 17,156/- on as development charges which onl can be considered a.part of the price of the plot. Sui gas charges paid ;e not the ~a~of the once of the plot and similarly the amounts paid subsequently for dui Ing penod extensions or any additional amount recovered on account elayed payments ~annot be considered part of the cost of the plot. The first amount on the basis DC's valuation table plus mark up at the rate of 17.5% per annu~ for delayed payment on account of his failure to fulfill the terms and conditions of exemption, is worked out as under: Price of the plot as per District Collector's Valuation R 4 88 s.,,624 Table nearest to the date of transfer of exemption i.e Dev. Charges paid on Rs.24,750 Rs. 24,750 Mark up for the period to Rs. 20,911 RS Dev. Charges paid on Rs. Mark up for the period to Rs. Total amount of development charges + mark Rs. 17.5% 17,156 12, Cost of plot land (Total value - Dev. Charges paid) Rs. 4,12,871 Add mark up for the period from the date of 1st transfer Rs.16,20,829 of exemption to the date of application. Total amount Rs.20,33, In order to work other amount, even if the benefit of the difference of the present market price and the price as per DC's valuation table, is given to the applicant, the amount is worked out at rates of the DC's Valuation Table dated relevant on the date of the present reference application, the value of the plot comes to Rs. 59, 65, 292. By subtracting estimated development charges of Rs. 9, 24, 620 the amount is reduced to Rs. 50,40,672. (Development charges have been of the price i.e. at the same ratio of the price of the plots and development charges as on Although the development charges paid against the plot constitute only 15.5 % of the price of the plot as per DC's valuation table in vogue on when the exemption was first time transferred by LOA to the vendor of the applicant and the price of land was 84.5 %, yet it would be fair if the applicant's liability is restricted to 50% of the price of the plot as per DC valuation table in vogue on the date of his filing of reference application i.e. Rs. 25, 20, 336. ~. ~ \ 11 ~5-1b

12 21. As the amount worked out in para 19 is lower than the amount ;orked out In para 20, the applicant will be required to pay the lower of the wo am~unts Rs. 20,33,700 for resolving the dispute and avoidin cancellation of th~ plot as envisaged in the clause 17 ibid. In case of ang patent error or omission apparent from the face of the record, is subsequentl~ dlscovere~ In ~heabove computation, the Commission may rectify the same on an application by either party. 22: In view of the above discussed facts, the record perused and the evidence examined, recommendations of the Commission are as under:- I. Notwithstanding the fact that under clause 17 ibid, the LOA is authorized to cancel exemption of plot No.3, Block G, M.A. Johar Town, Lahore, it is recommended to resolve the dispute that on payment to the LOA by the applicant an amount of Rs. 20,33, 700 as worked out above as price of the land of the plot, in lieu of the above discussed 03 Kanal 06 Marla land, the applicant will be allowed to retain the plot and proprietary right of the plot will be transferred in favour of the II. The applicant, however, may approach the competent forum to get the Mutation Nos and amended and in case the land measuring 03K- 06M is restored finally in the name of Mst. Falak Naz and transferred to LOA, the applicant will not be liable to pay any amount to the LOA and will retain the plot No.3, Block-G without payment of the amount worked out above. If the above worked amount is deposited by the applicant and subsequently ownership of Mst. Falak Naz is established the amount deposited shall be refunded to the applicant. iii. In case no appeal is filed by the applicant or by the LOA against this order, the LOA shall issue, within 30 days after the expiry of the time prescribed for the appeal or from the date of the application made by the applicant, whichever is earlier, one or two Challans at the option of the applicant for the payment of the above amount in lump sum or in two quarterly installments. iv. Subsequent to the payment of the above determined amount by the applicant or after final orders of the court of competent jurisdiction and transfer of land to the LOA by Mst. Falak Naz, the title of the applicant or his successor in interest at no stage, shall be called in question by the LOA and the cases for sanction of the building plan, commercialization, issuance of NOC, further transfer etc. in respect of the above plot shall be processed by the LOA a;::;:nt r~~es/policy in v~... ~D5".lt \.0 [0

13 " Announced v. In case the applicant fails to pay the above amount within six months from the date of the issuance of the Challan(s), the LOA may, retrieve the plot but not without compensation as envisaged In the clause 17 of the Exemption Letter read with the transfer. On retrieval of the plot LOA will refund the development charges received with 17.5% from the date of the payment of development charges to the LOA up to the date of the LOA's cheque for the refund amount payable to the applicant. The amount so calculated shall be refunded within one month of the retrieval of the plot. vi. If the applicant has raised construction on the plot after approval of the building plan, he will be entitled, in case of retrieval of plot by LOA, to receive compensation for the construction or any other development made by him as determined by the Chief Engineer, UO Wing, LOA. However, no compensation for the structure will be payable in case the building plan was not approved by the competent authority. vii. Director General, LOA should get an inquiry conducted regarding the entire holding of Mst. Ramzan Bibi and excess sale by her and exemption allowed against the excess land as mentioned in para 12 above. \'~\ (JO.\(U' _ (Javaid Akhtar) to. 0~. \b Member, LOAC 13