BEFORE LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION, LAHORE PRESENT: Mr. Javaid Akhtar, Chairman. Mr. Muhammad Yousaf, Member. Vs.

Transcription

1 BEFORE LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION, LAHORE PRESENT: Mr. Javaid Akhtar, Chairman Mr. Muhammad Yousaf, Member Reference No. 55/2017 M.r..Zafar Rashid Ahmad slo Rashid Ahmad Chaudhary RIo DIvine Gardens Airport Road, Lahore Vs. Applicant 1. Lahore Development Authority through Director General, 467/0-11, Main Boulevard, M.A. Johar Town, Lahore. 2. Director, Land Development-III, 467/0-11, Main Boulevard, M.A. Johar Town, Lahore. Order Respondents Mr. Zafar Rashid Ahmad slo Rashid Ahmad Chaudhary submitted an application at One Window on vide receipt No for filing reference to the LOA Commission. The Authorized Officer under sub-section (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 the Commission which was received on It was entered in the Institution Register at Serial No.55 of Notices were issued to the Applicant, the Director General LOA, Director Land Development-III, Land Acquisition Collector, LOA and Patwari halqa Ajhodiapur, sub-registrar Data Ganj Bakhsh, Senior Estate Officer LOA, GPA Shafique Ahmad s/o Khalil Ahmad and other witnesses. The statements of the Applicant, and other witnesses were recorded and record of Patwari and LAC branch of LOA was consulted. The documents produced by the Applicant, Patwari Halqa Ajhodiapur and LAC were examined and photo copies thereof were placed on the reference file. File No. FT-2983 of plot No. 373-A, Block-R Model Town Extension, attached with the reference by Directorate Land Development-III (hereinafter referred to as the plot file) was examined. Muhammad Saleem S/o Jameel Nizami could not be traced at the address available in the file. '" ~ ~ \}. ~~."2-o\g \V_' \ 1

2 Civil Judge Sarwat Rehman vide order dated dismissed the civil suit as withdrawn, filed by the Applicant against LOA and others. The copy of the order was placed in reference file. 2. According to the reference filed by the LOA; "The original file of the said plot is not available. Report on para-2 reveals that original file was sent to Vice Chairman LOA for inquiry, in the office of Inquiry Officer Gen. Ansari, which is not received back. Rather a duplicate file allegedly opened in 1996 is available in record. As per available record, plot No A Block-R of Model Town Extension Scheme was allegedly exempted in favour of Mr. Muhammad Saleem Sio Jamil Nizami in lieu of land measuring 1-Kanal & 56-Sqft falling in Khasra NO.1687/1015 mouza Ajudiapur. Only photo copy of exemption agreement vide NO.7122 Book No.1 Volume No.2123 dated Sub Registrar Sadar Lahore is available which is not even a certified copy (P-31-CI file-i). The said exemptee executed a GPA in the name of Mr. Shafique Ahmad S/O Khalil Ahmad who transferred the said plot in the name of Mr. Abdul Sattar S/O Shan Muhammad on (P-55-C-file No.4) and thereafter in the name of Mr. Rasheed Ahmad S/O Chaudhry Ghulam Farid on (P-101-file No.4). The plot was further transferred in the name of Mr. Zafar Rasheed Ahmad S/O Rasheed Ahmad on (P-147-file No.4). The plot was later on cancelled from the name of Mr. Zafar Rasheed Ahmad S/O Rasheed Ahmad by the LOA vide letter NO.LOAlOLO-11/1976 dated on the recommendations of NAB Authority vide letter No.1(9)IW-1 (C)/LOA-Officials/137/NAB-P dated Copy of the findings of the NAB Punjab are enclosed at the end of correspondence portion file No.1." 3. LOA further added that in order to further scrutinize the case the reports from different directorates have been taken, as under:- a. "The concerned Patwari of exemption branch reported vide para No.167 IN stating that file does not exist in Radeefwar Register and Khasra Register. According to Misal band register, file NO.FT/2983 is entered against the name of Muhammad Saleem S/O Jamil Nizami. A note is given regarding cancellation of subject cited plot. b. The award report of LAC branch regarding ownership is available at para-169 to 171-N stating a supplementary award was announced in the name of Muhammad Saleem S/O Jamil for an area measuring 01-Kanal out of khasra NO.1687/1015. Further states that on back of copy of mutation page-15 (file No.1), it is written (Qabil-e-Nazare-Sani) reviewable. c. The Investigation Officer, NAB Punjab observed that no Allocation committee has been found. 2

3 d. The Investigation Officer, NAB Punjab referred to the report of Land Acquisition Collector that as per Gazzette Notification No.U/S 4 (1) dated announced in Faisal Town Scheme land measuring 8-K 05-M was exempted to Aziz ur Rehman and Fazal ur Rehman sons of Atta Muhammad Khan in award No.16 & 17 dated However, the same land was transferred in favour of Provincial Government vide order passed by Collector dated e. The Investigation Officer, NAB Punjab referred to revenue record, reported by Patwari which shows that Khasra No.1686/1015/1 measuring 04-K 04-M and khasra No.1 015/2 measuring 04-K 01-M owned by Aziz ur Rehman and Fazal ur Rehman son of Atta Muhammad Khan was transferred in the name of Provincial Government through mutation No dated Afterwards, the same was transferred in the name of Zafar Iqbal Zafar SIO Qazi Muhammad Ahsaan Ali vide mutation No.6019 dated and thereafter to Karamat Ali and others son of Nawab Din and Muhammad Din SIO Muhammad Jarnil vide mutation No.6030 and 6031 who claimed exemption from LOA. f. The Investigation Officer further observed that the said land falls in Faisal Town Scheme and relevant khasra was also included in LAC Award for Faisal Town. Whereas, the said land was exempted in Model Town Ext. However, there is no exemption policy for Model Town Extension Scheme vide LOA letter No.LDNDLD-111I1509 dated which stated that no exemption policy was formulated for Model Town Extension Scheme as the land was purchased by LOA. g. Estate branch reported at para /N that entry in possession register existed in the name of Muhammad Akhtar SIO Muhammad Hussain vide letter No.3366 dated which was lateron cancelled vide letter No.DLD/LDN16601 dated Site report states that a double storey house is constructed at site and is rented out. Tenant pay monthly rent to a property dealer and do not know about the owner. h. The report of Town Planning Wing is at para-75-n stating that building file of plot No.373-A Block-R Model Town Extension Scheme is not available in the record as the file has been given to NAB I. Directorate of Revenue, vide para No.154-N from Sr.No.5 to 9 has verified the fee paid in lieu of development charges, suigas charges, mark up, penalty, building period, publication fee and two nos. transfer fee all paid in 2001 whereas development charges should 3 ~\.~O\%

4 have been paid before execution of exemption agreement which has been allegedly shown to have been executed in the year 1995 and bonafide purchase commission fee paid in J. The Directorate of One Window has provided photo copy of receiving register of transfer applications placed at FIA, FIB and FIC vide One Window No.4362 dated , 6049 dated , dated " LOA has considered the request of Mr. Zafar Rashid Ahmad slo Rashid Ahmad Ch. for referring his claim of bonafide purchase Itransfer of plot No. 373-A, Block-R Model Town Extension Scheme and referred the same to LOA Commission in terms of the LOA Amendment Act 2013 for consideration, resolution and decision. 4. Zafar Rashid Ahmad the Applicant appeared on and recorded his statement on oath. He contended that the house constructed on plot No. 363-A, Block R, Model Town (Extension) Scheme was purchased by his father. The Applicant sent the money to his father while he was living abroad. He himself never met the seller and the sale deal was settled by his father. He recognized the signature of his father on the transfer application. Regarding the payment of sale amount he referred to the copy of Agreement to Sell (page of Reference file). As per this agreement the whole sale price was paid except for Rs. 1,00,0001- which were to be paid at the time of transfer. The Applicant to prove the final payment produced a copy of receipt of Rs. 1,00,0001- which was placed in the Reference file (P-141). Syed Muhammad Ishaq Gillani slo Syed Maqbool Ahmad Shah witness to sale stated before this Commission on oath that the Plot No. 373-A Block R, Model Town Extension was sold by Mr. Abdul Sattar Sio Shan Muhammad to Rashid Ahmad Chaudhary slo Ghulam Farid. The witness initially mentioned the price of house as Rs.34,OO,OOOI- but after consulting the Agreement to Sell he confirmed that house was sold against an amount of Rs. 16,00, He confirmed his signature on the Agreement to Sell (Mark II). He also stated that he worked as a builder and in his opinion at the time of the transfer, the price of plot was as per market rate. He claimed that Abdul Sattar purchased the plot, constructed the house thereon and sold it to Rashid Ahmad Chaudhary. The sale deal was brokered in his presence, payment was made and he signed the Agreement to sell (Mark I) as witness. He participated in the transfer proceedings regarding the plot and signed the transfer application as witness. He also stated that Abdul Sattar the seller of house had passed away eight years ago. Mr. Shafique Ahmad slo Khalil Ahmad Rio House No.6 Street No. 56, Abdul Waheed Colony Mughal Pura Lahore stated on oath that he was an 4

5 employee of Malik Riaz who owned a shop under the banner of 'Electorogas' in Abid Market Temple Road Lahore. In addition to that, the latter was also running property business. He showed ignorance about the residential address or other particulars of Malik Riaz. Though Mr. Shafique Ahmad, witness admitted his signature on the Agreement to Sell (Mark I), but denied that he had anything to do with the sale and purchase of the plot. He admitted that he signed the application (page 00171) as transferee of the plot in the name of Mr. Abdul Sattar S/o Shan Muhammad and also Affidavits, at pages and 00175, but claimed that all he did was on the instructions of Malik Riaz. He contended that he could not refuse to Malik Riaz being his employee. He did not know Muhammad Saleem s/o Muhammad Jamil who allegedly issued a General Power of Attorney in his name. He also stated that he left the employment of Malik Riaz fifteen years ago, started driving a Rikshaw and now again is working as an employee in Shalimar Trading Company. It appeared that he was not forthcoming in his evidence. Although he verified the transactions and transfer of the plot but did not reveal the particulars of Malik Riaz and Muhammad Saleem who were responsible for illegal exemption. Muhammad Ramzan Sajid S/o Shan Muhammad, brother of Abdul Sattar, confirmed that he signed the Agreement to sell as witness. But he did not remember whether the amount was received in cash or through cheque. 5. Nawab Ali, Patwari of OLD-III office, produced the Radifwar Register, Khasra war Register and Misalband Register. According to Khasra war register against Khasra No. 1686/1015 file no related to Aziz-ur Rehaman S/o Atta Muhammad was opened. Whereas against Khasra No. 1687/1015 file No of Fazal-ur-Rehman S/o Atta-ur-Rehman was opened. In Misal Band Register the name of Muhamamd Saleem s/o Jamil Nizam appeared at S.No but against his name number of Khasra has been mentioned as No sub-division of this Khasra number has been shown. There is no signature of any officer against this entry. In khasra war Register and in Award for Faisal Town the name of Muhammad Saleem did not appear. Khasra Number 1686/1015 and 1687/1015 were acquired for the Faisal Town Housing Scheme. From the perusal of record, there is no claim either by LOA or by the Applicant and his predecessors that the Plot in Model Town Extension Scheme was allotted due to non-availability of plots in Faisal Town. Even if it is presumed that Muhammad Saleem was adjusted in the Model Town (Extension) Scheme due to non-availability of plot in Faisal Town, the name of Muhammad Saleem would have appeared in the Award of Faisal Town and Khasrawar Register. This clearly shows that bogus entries were made in the Misal band Register and a fraudulent exemption was managed and granted in the Model Town Extension Scheme.. 5

6 Sharjeel Usmani Estate Officer LOA OEM-I produced the Possession Register of Block R, Model Town Extension Scheme. According to Register the possession of plots No. 373 and 373-A Block R Model Town Extension Scheme was handed over to Muhammad Akhtar s/o Muhammad Hussain on but the possession of the same plots have been shown, given to Muhammad Saleem S/o Jameel Nizam on by amending the entries. The possession of plots were given to Muhammad Akhtar and it could not be changed through a letter issued at an earlier date. This shows that LOA staff was fully involved in the bogus allotment and fraudulent handing over of possession of the plots. If LOA staff itself is involved in the forgery and manipulation of the record, an outsider, the transferee cannot be condemned for purchase of a plot which was exempted and transferred fraudulently, unless the involvement of the purchaser in the fraud is proved. 6. The perusal of the plot file revealed that the letter of exemption of plot 373-A, Block R, Model Town was allegedly issued on vide letter No. 2557, in the name of Muhammad Saleem s/o Jameel Nizami, Bistami Road Saman Abad Lahore. (page-00037) There is nothing on record that could explain that how the exemption was allowed because the original file was misplaced and the permission to reconstruct the file was given by Mr. B.A. Nasir, the then OLD on The original file, according to para No.1 of reconstructed file, was sent to the office of Director General in connection with an inquiry. But the OLD while granting permission to reconstruct the file did not bother to ascertain in which inquiry the file was requisitioned. He did not give a thought to the fact that unless the final outcome of the inquiry was known the permission to reconstruct the file was not appropriate. The possession of the plot was allegedly given to Mr. Muhammad Saleem on as per a photocopy of letter No. E.O dated (page-0047 of Plot file). But as discussed above the entry of possession in the Register were made at later stage. The agreement between LOA and the Exemptee was executed vide document no. 7122, Bhi No.1, volume No.2123 Pages Nil on as per photocopy available on the file (pages plot file). The agreement was signed by Muhammad Saleem s/o Muhammad Jameel Bistami. The authenticity of the Sale Deed could not be verified since Record Keeper of the office of Sub Registrar Iqbal Town has reported that the record was burnt on Even otherwise the Registration of the sale deed had no value because plot No. 373 and 373-A, Block R could not be exempted as the land, against which the plots were shown exempted was acquired for Faisal Town. The exemption of plots against the said land had already been made to Mr. Azizur-Rehman.. rl ~~~~Ol.'2.0I8; W-~o'3'c

7 7. A note recorded by Mian Muhammad Anwar, Land Acquisition Collector LOA, dated points out that the main Award of Faisal Town was announced by LAC on and Khasra No. 1686/1015 & 1687/1015 of Mouza Ajhodiapur were notified for Faisal Town Scheme. (pages of plot file). These khasra numbers were awarded in the name of Aziz-ur-Rehman and Fazal-ur-Rehman sons of Atta Muhammad. Later on District Collector cancelled the mutation and this land reverted to and remained in the ownership of the Provincial Government. In the year 1991 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner allotted the land falling in Khasra No. 1687/1015 measuring 04K-01 M to Zafar Iqbal Zafar slo Qazi Muhammad Ehsaan Ali Rio Tariq Street Janazqah Mozang Road Lahore vide his decision dated Mr. Zafar Iqbal Zafar sold this land to various vendees. According to note of LAC Director General directed "at this stage in the circumstances of the case the Applicant is only entitled to cash compensation at the rate obtaining at the time of acquisition." However the LAC submitted that the Applicants are willing to accept the previous value subject to the exemption of plots against their ownership as per LOA policy. He mentioned the name of Karamat Ali, Shoukat Ali, Liaqat Ali Sslo Nawab Din and Muhammad Saleem Sio Muhammad Jarnil as owners of Khasra number 1687/1015. There is no approval of the proposal by DG LOA or an authorized officer in the record. There is nothing on record to show that how the exemption in the Model Town Extension Scheme was allowed when the area fell in the Faisal Town Scheme limits. The land was transferred by Zafar Iqbal Zafar slo Qazi Muhammad Ehsan Ali to Karamat Ali, Shaukat Ali, Liaqat Ali Sslo Nawab Din Rio Qila Jewan Singh Lahore and Muhammad Saleem slo Muhammad Jarneel in equal share vide mutation No sanctioned on But according to page of plot file the mutation was reviewed by the Revenue Officer on to the extent of 03K-01 M. This document was attached with the application for reconstruction of file. But no one bothered to note that the ownership of Muhammad Saleem had been reduced to only five Marias. This reduction of ownership is discussed below. 8. According to Revenue Record produced by Pawari Halqa Ajhodia pur Khasra No. 1687/1015 measuring 04k-01 M had reverted back to the Provincial government on in compliance of the order of Deputy Commissionerl District Collector dated It is interesting to note that the order of District Collector was implemented almost after nine years. When Fazal-ur-Rehman and his brother Aziz-ur-Rehman owner of khasra no. 1686/1015 and 1687/1015 had availed the benefit of exemption against their land in Faisal Town Scheme. Then this reverted land was got allotted by Zafar Iqbal Zafar by Deputy Settlement Commissioner on and sold to four Lt. persons on who again got exemption against this 7 ~.~ ~'U,g

8 land. In Jamabandi of the land was under the ownership of the Provincial Government and there is an entry that High Court has issued a stay order in respect of Khata No. 1687/1015. However as mentioned in Para 6 above the mutation number 6031 was proposed to be reviewed by Revenue Officer to the extent of land measuring 03K-01 M. This proposal was made on Part Sarkar. As such this mutation had become disputed on the basis of which no exemption could be granted unless the ownership of the original Exemptee would have been re-established. 9. Muhammad Saleem s/o Muhamamd Jameel executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Shafiq Ahmad s/o Khalil Ahmad. The latter although has admitted his signature on the GPA but contended that he had nothing to do with the sale/purchase of the plot. However the GPA in favour of Shafique Ahmad by Muhammad Saleem was registered on Muhammad Shafique in an affidavit attested on (page ) stated that he had sold the plot to Abdul Sattar and had received the total amount. The stamp papers for affidavits were purchased on As such prima facie Mr. Abdul Sattar was involved in preparation of GPA document in favour of Shafique Ahmad. Although the version of Abdul Sattar s/o Shan Mohammad could not be ascertained since he has passed away as per statement of witnesses, but since he was involved in the property business he would definitely have had the knowledge that the plot was exempted fraudulently and no policy of exemption existed for Model Town (Extension) Scheme. The exemption and possession of plot and transfer to Abdul Sattar was done with the connivance of LOA officers and staff, since Sahfiq Ahmad holder of GPA has stated that he did not appear before LOA officers for transfer of plot. Hence the whole proceedings of exemption were manipulated by Malik Riaz a businessman working in Abid Maket Temple Road Lahore, as per statement of Shafique Ahmad, and Mr. Abdul Sattar. 10. LOA has cancelled the plot vide its letter No. LOAlOLO-II/1977 dated on the grounds that "exemption and its allied transactions were procured through forged/fictitious documents as well as fabricated/bogus signatures of officers/officials of LOA" but neither LOA in its reference has denied the transfer of plot to Mr. Rashid Ahmad Chaudhary and Zafar Rashid Chaudhary nor it has challenged the claim of Applicant Zafar Rashid Ahmad as a bona fide purchaser. Mr. Rashid Ahmad Chaudhary purchased the plot, constructed a house and a completion certificate was issued by the LOA in his name. Therefore, the Commission despite the alleged fraud/collusion in the process 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. 8 ~.<J\'-z_o(&'

9 reference to resolve the dispute. The above mentioned provisions of the Act are reproduced below:- "(4) The Authority or any officer so authorized by the Authority, on its own motion or on the application of any person, may refer any matter to the Commission for consideration, resolution and decision if a prima facie case is made out." "(5) The Commission shall consider and make appropriate recommendations on matters pertaining to; (a) bona fide purchase for value owing to irregular or fraudulent transaction in respect of property, the extent of legality or illegality of the transaction, apportionment of responsibility in irregular or fraudulent transaction and translation of this responsibility into monetary terms and recommendation of such conditions, fines, rate or fix price, retrieval of property and demolition as deemed appropriate according to the nature of each case." 11. There is no doubt that the original Exemptee procured the allotment fraudulently. The Applicant claims that he had no knowledge about the fraud in exemption proceedings but this is a fact that he accepted the exemption of plot on the same terms and conditions on which it was held by the exemptee. Relevant portion of transfer letter No. FT-2378 dated is reproduced below: "I am to inform you that the exemption of the plot cited above has now been transferred to your name on the terms and conditions it was held by the original exemptee." The Applicant himself and his father Rashid Ahmad Chaudhary accepted the terms and conditions of the transfer. While the plot was being transferred the Applicant signed the endorsement on the transfer application dated (page of file 4 attached with plot file No. FT 2983) which reads; "I endorse the above application and if the property is transferred to me, 1as 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." 12. Despite claims of the innocence by the Applicant, this is an irrefutable fact that in the affidavit at page 0113 of file No.4 of plot file No. FT 2983, filed with the transfer set, the Applicant undertook to abide by the terms 9

10 and conditions of the exemption of the said plot between the original Exemptee and LOA and to comply with all orders, directions and instructions etc. in force or issued from time to time by the LOA. Therefore, whatever rights have come to vest in the Applicant, those did not constitute full and absolute title in the plot. The Applicant was bound to fulfill the conditions laid down in the Exemption letter No dated issued to the original exemptee and the clause 19 of the Agreement signed between LOA and the original Exemptee on The Applicant, therefore, must have been aware of the fact that his purchase was subject to the incident to those conditions which are contained in the Agreement between the Authority and the original Exemptee. The LOA had a right to cancel the allocation/exemption of plot under clause 19 of the Agreement which reads; "That if at any stage your title is proved to be defective, the exemption of the plot shall stand automatically withdrawn and the First Party shall be entitled to take over the land along with structures standing thereon without payment of any damages or compensation." 13. Although the exemption was transferred by LOA i.e. the real owner of the plot, yet the fact remains that the transfer was made conditionally and the Applicant accepted those conditions without any objection. Every purchaser of exemption rights is supposed to have knowledge that the transaction of purchase is subject to those conditions which are contained in the agreement for exemption or in the exemption letter. At this stage the contention of the Applicant that he was not aware of the terms and conditions can't be accepted. This being so, the Vendee despite being innocent buyer can't raise the plea of protection on the principle of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which relates to the transfer of property by an ostensible owner. In the present case it was a conditional sale and the Applicant is bound to fulfill the conditions accepted by him at the time of transfer of exemption in his favour. Moreover, Applicant's rights being vendee of exemption rights can't exceed the rights vested in the vendor who was not full owner of the plot and did not have proprietary rights of the plot. Therefore, for acquiring proprietary rights the Applicant is subject to the conditions of the sale as per terms and conditions of exemption. 14. Although the exemption in the Model Town couldn't be allowed but since the agreement between the LOA and original Exemptee was allegedly signed and the whole claim of the Applicant primarily is based on that agreement, the Exemptee is bound to fulfill the terms and conditions of the contract if he wants to avail benefits of bonafide purchaser. According to 10

11 clause 4 of the Agreement the exemptee agreed to surrender all rights and interest in land measuring 01 K-OM-56 sft. against which the two plots were exempted. Therefore, the exemptee is not a full owner and the exemption letter and the agreement don't constitute absolute title in the plot. The title of the plot remains vested in the LOA till exchange deed is executed. The above mentioned plot was exempted against the land of Khasra Nos. 1687/1015 of Mauza Ajhodiapur, falling in Faisal Town Scheme. The Applicant was transferred exemption rights subject to the terms and conditions contained in the exemption agreement and was bound to transfer the land in favour of LOA against which the exemption was granted. 15. The defect in the ownership of the original exemptee's land or plea of fraud or irregularities committed by LOA or the Revenue Department functionaries does not absolve the Applicant from abiding by the terms and conditions of the transfer of exemption accepted by him, even if the entire transaction and proceedings before transfer of exemption are proved to be fraudulent nor can he raise the plea of protection on the principle of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, In case he fulfills the terms and conditions accepted by him at the time of transfer of exemption, LOA shall be bound to transfer to him the proprietary rights, notwithstanding the fraud or collusion committed by the LOA officers/officials to which the Applicant was not a party. The original exemptee paid the development charges which as admitted by LOA have been duly verified. The Applicant paid transfer fee but the price of the plot was not paid by him or his predecessors to the LOA and instead the Applicant took upon himself to transfer land to LOA by execution of an exchange deed. The Vendor has not paid any price of the land of plot nor transferred land to the LOA, therefore, the price paid by the Applicant to the vendor does not include the price of the land which was to be transferred to LOA in exchange of the subject plot. The Applicant is liable either to transfer the above mentioned land to the LOA or alternatively in order to resolve the dispute, to pay the price of the land of the plot for transfer of title of the plot in his favour. 16. In view of the position, as has been noticed by the Commission from the Revenue record, the Applicant cannot now get the land transferred to the LOA. The land against which exemption was claimed fell in Faisal Town Scheme and for that particular land Mr. Fazal-ur-Rehman had already availed the benefit of exemption. Therefore, he has to acquire proprietary rights on payment of the price of the plot (minus development charges already paid by him). In case the plot had been in the name of the original exemptee who got it allocated allegedly on the basis of fraud and collusion, the plot would have been certainly cancelled and he couldn't have any right for its regularization. But when the plot was first transferred by LOA legally 11

12 or illegally to Mr. Abdul Sattar slo Shan Muhammad, he would have been entitled to retain the plot under these proceedings on establishing that he was a bona fide purchaser. Therefore, the same right can be claimed by the present Applicant. The right of exemption i.e. to get the title of the plot by transferring ownership of above mentioned land, was conferred by the LOA when the LOA transferred exemption to the Applicant on receipt of transfer fee, therefore, price of the plot as on as per DC's Valuation Table along with charges for delayed payment, should be charged from him in order to resolve the dispute as envisaged in sub section (4) of section 32 of the LOA (Amendments) Act, 2013 which reads: "(4) The Authority or any officer so authorized by the Authority, on its own motion or on the application of any person, may refer any matter to the Commission for consideration, resolution and decision if a prima facie case is made out." 17. According to the DC's valuation table notified the prevailing at the time of 1st transfer i.e , the price per Marla in Model Town Extension, was Rs. 69,0001- per Marla. Thus price of 5M-3Sft. plot comes to Rs. 3,45,7601-The Applicant's predecessor paid to the LOA Rs on as development charges. Sui gas charges paid are not the part of the price of the plot and similarly the amounts paid subsequently for building period extensions or any additional amount recovered on account delayed payments cannot be considered part of the cost of the plot. However, the amount of Rs paid as development charges can only be considered a part of the price of the plot. It was the responsibility of the Applicant as discussed above, to get transferred 1K-OM-56 Sft. land to the LOA and it is the Applicant who failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the exemption, therefore, he is liable to pay mark up at the rate of 17.5% per annum for delayed payment as specified in clause 3 of the exemption letter dated On account of his failure to fulfill the terms and conditions of exemption, he will have to pay to the LOA an amount of Rs. 12,64,7861- worked out below:- Sr. No. Statement --~--~- ~ ".-- ~ ~ ) Price of the 5M-3Sft. plot as per District Collector's Valuation nearest to the date of 1st.Transfer of Exemption i.e _ ~ 3,45,7601-2) Dev. Charges paid on ,

13 ) Mark up on Dev Charges amounting to 356/- Rs.6,4501- for the period From to (1st. Transfer) 1--- t _-1 4) Total Development charges with markup 6,806/ I 5) Cost of plot land (Total value - Dev. 3,38,954/ Charges paid) ) Add mark up for the period from the date 9,25,832/ of 1st. transfer of exemption to the date of filing of application ( ) f ) Total cost of plot to be paid by the 12,64,786- Applicant to resolve to resolve the dispute j In case of any patent error or omission apparent from the face of the record, is subsequently discovered in the above computation, the Commission may rectify the same on an application by either party. 18. From the record and the evidence produced by the Applicant it appears that: I. The plot was exempted to Mr. Muhammad Saleem slo Jamil Nizami fraudulently with the involvement of LOA officials in Model Town Extension Scheme for which there was no exemption policy, by reconstructing a file when original file was already under inquiry. The agreement was signed un-authorisedly even if it was genuine. The plot was further transferred by LOA, while transferring officers II. must have known that the exemption could not be granted in the Model Town Extension Scheme. The land against which exemption was granted had disputed status since the Mutation allowing title was under review and against the same land the exemption had already been granted in Faisal Town. III. Neither the Applicant nor his father was a party in the fraud committed by Mr. Muhammad Saleem slo Jameel Nizami and others who fraudulently got the exemption of the plot. IV. The plot was transferred to the Applicant by his father without any consideration of sale amount, hence he was not a purchaser of the plot. The plot was purchased by Mr. Rashid Ahmad Chaudhary with the amount sent by the Applicant. Because of his death the circumstance related to purchase cannot be ascertained. But on 13

14 the principle of benefit of doubts he cannot be held for involvement in any fraud. V. The Applicant's father had paid full and fair price of the plot to the vendor for transfer of exemption rights and possession of the plot. Mr. Rashid Ahmad Chaudhary later on transferred the plot to the Applicant who had actually paid the price. Therefore, the Applicant Zafar Rashid Ahmad is held to be a bona fide purchaser of the rights of exemption transferred by LOA to him which he had purchased through his father Mr. Rahsid Ahmad Chaudhary. 19. 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, LOA is authorized to cancel exemption of plot No.371-A, Model Town Extension Scheme being fraudulently obtained but since it has been transferred by LOA itself, it is recommended to resolve the dispute that on payment to the LOA by the Applicant an amount of Rs. 12,64,687 as worked out above as price of the land of the plot, in lieu of the above discussed land, the Applicant will be allowed to retain the plot and proprietary right of the plot will be transferred in his favour. II. In case no appeal is filed by the Applicant or by the LOA against this order, the LOA shall issue, within 30 days after the expiry of the time prescribed for the appeal or from the date of the application made by the Applicant, whichever is earlier, one or two Challans at the option of the Applicant for the payment of the above amount in lump sum or in two quarterly installments. iii. Subsequent to the payment of the above determined amount by the Applicant, 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 as per relevant rules/policy in vogue. iv. In case the Applicant fails to pay the stated amount in (para i) within six months from the date of the issuance of the Challan(s), the LOA may, retrieve the plot but not without compensation. 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 14

15 cheque for the refund amount payable to the Applicant. The amount so calculated shall be refunded within one month of the retrieval of the plot. v. If the Applicant has raised construction on the plot after approval of the building plan, he will be entitled, in case of retrieval of plot by LOA, to receive compensation for the construction or any other development made by him as determined by the Chief Engineer, UD Wing, LOA. However, no compensation for the structure will be payable in case the building plan was not approved by the competent authority. vi. Director General, LOA should get an inquiry conducted regarding the exemption of the plot to Muhammad Saleem s/o Jameel Nizami in view of observations made in para 6, 18(i) and 18 (ii). Member, LDAC Chairman, LDAC Announced