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

Transcription

1 BEFORE LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION, LAHORE Reference No. 124/2018 Order Mr. Javaid Akhtar, Chairman Mr. Muhammad Yousaf, Member Mrs. Naheed Naseer wlo Syed Naseer Ahmad, Syed Asim Naseer, Syed Aizaz Naseer, Syed Ahmad Naseer Ss/o and Syeda Amna Naseer 0/0 Syed Naseer Ahmad, & Mrs. Haniya Ali wlo Syed Ali Ahmad RIo 185-B Tech Society, Canal Bank Lahore. Vs. Applicants 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) Lahore Respondents Mrs. Naheed Naseer wlo Syed Naseer Ahmad on behalf of joint owners submitted application at One Window vide receipt No for filing reference to the LOA Commission. 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. 124 of Notices were issued to the Applicant, the Director LOA, Director Land Development-I, Sub Registrar Model Town and Patwari DLD-i Exemption) and other witnesses. The statements the Applicant, Mr. Naseer Ahmed, Sayed Asim Naseer and Ghulam Allah Ditta, the witnesses were recorded on oath and record of DLD-i, Niaz Beg was consulted. The documents produced by the Applicant, Patwari Halqa and his statement was examined, and photocopies thereof were placed on the reference file. The notice for appearance to Ghulam Hussain s/o Amir Ali was served but he failed to turn up. Mr Allah Ditta, GPA, was reported to has passed away on 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

2 witness to the Agreement to Sell, remained unserved since he had shifted from the given address. File of the plot JTNBII-5047, attached with the reference by the Directorate Land Development-I, (hereafter referred to as plot file) was examined. 2. According to the reference filed by the LDA; "One Mr. Ghulam Hussain Slo Amir Ali claimed to be owner of land measuring 20K-02M falling in khasra No.11588, 11602, of Mouza Niaz Baig, Lahore on the basis of mutation No Exemption was granted through negotiation by the then DLD in favor of Mr. Ghulam Hussain in shape of six plots measuring one kanal each. Allocation committee allocated plots No. 955, 957 and 975 of Block-L and plots No. 585, 596 and 599 of Block-H/3 (measuring one kanal each). Allocation proceedings are available at para 67/N of file No. JT NB-II Before issuance of allocation letters Ghulam Hussain S/o Ameer Ali appointed Mr. Allah Ditta Slo Nizam Din as his General Power of Attorney which is registered by Sub Registrar, Model Town, Lahore vide document No. 2986, book No. 04, volume No dated (certified copy available at page 63-69/1C in the instant file). Therefore, allocation letter of plot No. 955 Block-L, M.A. Johar Town Lahore was issued in favour of Ghulam Hussain Slo Ameer Ali through Allah Ditta (GPA) vide letter No. JTINB-11/5047/7859dated (Page /C). Final Demand Notice was issued vide NO.647dated which was deposited LDA Accounts on (page /c). Exemption letter of the said plot was issued vide letter No. JT/NB-11/5047/8454 dated (Page /C) and the possession order of the said plot was issued on at page /C and physical possession of said plot was handed over to Exemptee through attorney Mr. Allah Ditta on in light of possession order dated vide No. 0/784 dated Later- on plot No. 955 Block-L, was transferred by Ghulam Hussain S/o Ameer Ali through his Attorney Allah Ditta in favour of Mst. Naheed Naseer, Ms. Haniya,Syed Asim Naseer, Syed Aizaz Naseer, Syed Ahmad Naseer & Miss. Amina Naseer Wife, sons and daughter of Syed Naseer Ahmad vide letter NO.JT-NB-11/5047/967 dated (page /C). 3. In light of reports obtained from different quarters, LDA submitted following facts and comments regarding the instant i). "Gross irregularity has been found in the case as exemption granted against the land falling in well-known khatooni No. 973 Mouza Niaz Page 2 of 14

3 Baig, Lahore, which belongs to Federal Government and allotment of land in the said khatooni was illegally granted. As the Assistant Commissioner (City), Lahore in report submitted to Additional District Collector, Lahore vide memo No. 896 dated (available at page /C) stated that most of the allotments in khatooni No. 973 were made on basis of Land Reforms from the land which was already acquired by Lahore Development Authority for M.A. Johar Town Scheme while the scope of Land Reforms is nothing else but allotment of agriculture land land less tenants. ii), Exemption was granted through negotiation and negotiation agreement was executed by then Director Land Development, Mr. Manzar Hayat on against the whereas powers of negotiation not vest with him. Hence, transgression of powers is involved in the instant case as the power negotiation vest with the Authorityl Vice Chairman, LDA. iii). iv). At para 43/N (main file) Revenue staff reported that double exemption has been granted against khasra No Mouza Niaz baig, Lahore as another claimant namely Booda Slo Muhammad Boota has also obtained exemption against said land in khasra No in (File No. JTNBII-5910). Letters were written to Revenue authorities for deciding the fate of ownership of Mr. Ghulam Hussain. The Additional District Collector, Lahore vide his office letter No. HVC/2698 dated (page- 237/C) intimated that mutation No favour of Mr. Ghulam Hussian, bogus and has been cancelled. Hence, it clear that Mr. Ghulam Hussain obtained exemption fraudulently on the basis of bogus ownership documents/title. v). The all six plots allocated in No. JTNBII-5047 are at prime locations and created doubt about genuineness of the allocation proceedings. Plot No. 955 Block-L, M.A. Town is situated on corner of 45 meter wide road opposite to construction hotel near expo center. vi). The status of plots No. 955 Block L in possession register and at site was sought from Directorate of Management-I, LDA. Concerned branch has reported at para 1 30/N that possession of plot was handed over to Mr. Ghulam through Allha Ditta and there is double story building stand constructed site which is used as commercial in shape of office. 30f14

4 vii). Verification of dues from Directorate of Revenue has been obtained which is available at para 120/N. As per report all dues including 1st & final demand notices for development charges and transfer fees NOC etc. have been verified. viii). IX). Report of Town Planning Directorate is available at para 134/N which shows that building plan of plot NO.955 Block-L, was sanctioned on in the name of Mst Naheed Naseer etc. and completion certificate has also been issued on The scrutiny list was consulted and the instant file is not included in those files which are under scrutiny. x), Instant file is not included published in the list of missing files which were xi). Personal hearing has been granted to applicant and record documents in her possession along with utility bills at para NO.14/N. Consequent upon the cancellation of Mutation No by the Additional 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. Show Cause Notice was issued to transferee of no. 955 Biock-L, Mst. Naheed Naseer etc. vide this office letter dated (Page 169/C). In response to Show Cause Notice, Mst Naheed Naseer filed civil suit before the court of Farhan Shakoor Civil Judge, Lahore which is pending. Now Mst. Naheed Naseer through OWO reference NO dated has applied for placing her case before the LOA Commission for Bona-fide purchasers." As mentioned above Exemption Scrutiny Committee has recommended to place the case before this Commission. Applicants submitted a certified copy which shows that under the order of Civil Qamar-un-Nisa the suit pending in the court was dismissed on as withdrawn. (Mark VIII) 4. Mrs. Naheed Naseer wlo recorded on oath contended that MA Johar Town were conducted Ahmad in her statement proceedings Plot No. 955 Block L, her husband and her son but it was transferred in her and all her children's name. children have issued Special Power Attorney in her to case. She identified her and her children's signatures on the application. Syed Naseer Ahmad slo Syed Mushtaq Ahmad stated on oath the plot was purchased by 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

5 help of a senior officer, Ch. Sharif Ahmad, who was a Member of Board of Revenue at that time. He deputed a Tehsildar to verify the record who reported 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 an amount of Rs.10,OO,0001- and the payment was made by his son Syed Asim Naseer. The building completion certificate was issued by LDA vide letter No. BA/399-JT/221 dated and commercialization of building was accorded by LDA on admitted that did not meet Mr. Allah Ditta, GPA of Mr. Ghulam Hussain the original exempttee. He produced a copy of statement containing expenditure incurred on purchase of plot and rent received from the building. Syed Naseer in his statement claimed that 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 Sell was scribed which was signed by him and Mr. Allah Ditta. At the time of purchase the file of LDA was checked and there was no defect in the land title at that time. Mr. Ghulam Ali slo Allah Ditta RIo 62 Huma Block Allama Iqbal Town in statement informed that his father had passed away (copy of death certificate Mark-VI. He could recognize the signature of his father on document but he recognized photo available in the file and on copy of ID card placed in the file. 5. The perusal of file No. JTNBI1/5047(Main of Exemption) revealed that Mr. Ghulam Hussain slo Ameer Ali Hanjarwal, Niaz Baig filed an application on requesting for of plot in lieu of his land acquired falling in khasra Nos min, 11602min, and 11606min measuring 20K-02M. In the file, original letter of Consolidation Officer circle Lahore addressed to LAC, dated , (available at page 00007) informed that through Mutation No land falling in Khasra No (08K-16M), (00K-11M) and 11 (10K-15M) measuring 20K-02M land been transferred to Mr. Ghulam Hussain slo Ameer Ali. The attested copy of Mutation No , sanctioned on , available in file at page 00011/c, also shows that land falling in Khasra No min, 11602min and min was transferred to him in exchange of his land which was previously owned 'Mushtraqa Malkan'. This mutation was sanctioned in pursuance of the Consolidation Officer dated Previously, vide Mutation No. 19, sanctioned on , the land measuring 70K-00M falling khasra No , 11602, 13010, 13011, and was transferred to Mushtraqa Malkan from Provincial Government. Vide his report at para 28/N, Patwari LAC reported that he had visited the Patwar khana, Mouza Niaz Beg, alongwith Qanungo and Tehsildar and found no. was correct. The permission to grant exemption through negotiation was granted by Director General LD on Mr. Ghulam Hussain was allocated six plots 50f14

6 No. 955,957, 975 Block L and plots No. 585, 596 and 599 in Block H-3 measuring 420 sqm measuring each. (para 57-58/N of plot file). The exemption of plot No. 955, Block L, Johar Town was issued vide letter No. JT/BN-1I/5047/845 dated plot was transferred in the name of Applicants on This Commission has already examined the revenue record in Reference No. 1/2015 titled Humaid Salim VS LOA and had noted following observations as far concerned: "6. Mr. Nisar Ahmad, Patwari, LAC Branch, LOA produced the award record and it was observed Khasra numbers 11588, and being part of Khatooni No. 973 were owned by the Provincial Government and award thereof was announced as these Khasra numbers were to be purchased by LOA from the Provincial Government as per Government policy. Scheme plan superimposed with Khasra numbers was and it was observed that the above mentioned Khasra numbers fall in M Johar Town Scheme. The Consolidation authorities had no right to allot the above mentioned Khasra numbers, being part.a. Johar Scheme as well as in the ownership of the Provincial Government, any other person under the Consolidation proceedings. Halqa Niaz Baig was summoned with the relevant record. The original record produced by him was examined and copies of Mutation Nos , to 33021, and were obtained and placed on the reference file. Original Mutation Book No by the Patwari Halqa Niaz Baig was examined. thereof that two pages i.e. mutation No and 33020, do not bear book number and have been inserted in the book by removing the original pages whereas, pages of all other Mutations including Mutations Nos and have printed book No Mutation No dated available the book Parat Patwar and the in the plot file are different. The No (which also is bogus on the available Patwari's record, is regarding transfer of 30/1 Khasra No measuring 6 Kanal and 12 Marla from Mst. Begum to Altaf Hameed. But as per copy of the said on plot file No. JT/NB ,Khasra No , 11 along with other Khasra Nos, were transferred from Khatooni No. to Mushtarika Khata on the basis of order dated 1991 purportedly passed by the Collector Consolidation, Lahore. Mr. Gulam Hussain with reference to the said Mutation No dated 991 was allotted vide Mutation No dated numbers 11588, and on the orders of Consolidation dated In 6of14

7 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 revenue record as utation No and Mutation No both were bogus. But the LOA could not detect the fraud till when the report Additional District Collector was received which disclosed that mutation No being bogus was cancelled on " 7. The applicants, however, have contended that they were innocent buyers 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 of the transaction, there was nothing record of LOA or the Revenue Department indicating any fraud in respect of the land against which exemption was granted. The Vendor also handed over possession of the plot to the applicant, which still is in their possession. It was the responsibility of the Revenue Department to prevent the fraud as Mutation number was intact, there could not circumstance calling for any inquiry by the applicant They a hefty amount for purchasing exemption rights from Original Exemptee in good faith. It cannot, therefore, be presumed that applicants were a party in the commission of or in connivance at the fraud. Although the exemption was transferred by LOA i.e, the real owner of the plot the fact remains the transfer was conditionally and accepted those conditions without any objection. 8. LOA has alleged that the no more awardee due to cancellation of Mutation No Mouza Niaz Baig and the exemption was granted in lieu of the land in Khatooni No. 973 of Mouza Niaz Baig. The permission of negotiation was conducted by Director Land Development whereas the power negotiation vested with the Vice Chairman. LOA alleged that notification which specifically debarred Director Land Development to negotiate the agreement between the Exemptee and LOA. However, of the file shows that permission for negotiation was granted by Director LOA 66/N). The mutation, although termed as bogus, was not cancelled nor was there any report of being bogus on plot file at the by Applicants. Despite the allegation of fraud, LOA has the exemption order dated nor the claim applicants as fide purchasers. The record and evidence exhibit that plot, constructed a building and LOA issued building At the time of transfer, there was nothing in indicated about any dispute over the ownership of Commission despite the alleged cancellation of land ownership of the original Exemptee, in view of Sub-Section (4) of Section 32 Act, 2013 read with Sub-section of Section 32 of (ibid) to consider the present 7of14

8 reference to resolve the dispute. The above-mentioned are reproduced below: provisions of the Act "(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 considerationl resolution and decision if a prima facie case made out." "(5) The Commission shall consider recommendations on matters pertaining to; make appropriate (a) bona fide purchase for value owmq to irregular or fraudulent transaction in respect property, the extent of legality or illegality of transaction, apportionment of responsibility in irregular or fraudulent transaction and translation of this responsibility monetary terms and recommendation such conditions, fines, rate or fix price, retrieval of property and demolition as deemed appropriate according to the each case." 9. Exemption the plot was to the Applicants by LOA on the same terms and condition on which it was held by Exemptee. Relevant portion of transfer letter No. JT/NB-11/5047/968 dated is reproduced below: "I am to inform you that the exemption the plot cited above as subject has now been transferred in your name on the terms and conditions it was held by original II The Applicants accepted the terms and the transfer. They themselves signed the endorsement the transfer application (page 0079 of plot file No. JT/NB-11/5047)which reads; "I endorse the above application and if the property is transferred to me, I as successor in interest or shall be subject to all the conditions and terms contained in Agreement/Exemption letter between the transferer and the Department Authority." 10. In the affidavit at page 0161 of plot file No. JT/NB-1I/5047,filed with the transfer set, the Applicants undertook to abide by the terms and conditions of the exemption of the said plot between the original Exemptee and LOA and to comply with all orders and and instructions etc. in force or issued from time time by the LOA. Therefore, whatever rights have come to vest in the Applicants, those did not constitute and absolute title in the plot. The Applicants were bound to fulfill the conditions laid down in the Page 8 of 14

9 Exemption letter No. JT/NB-II/5047/8454 dated issued to the original Exemptee. The Applicants, therefore, must have been aware of the fact that their purchase was subject to the incident those conditions which are contained in the exemption letter issued by the Authority. The LOA had a right to cancel the allocation/exemption of plot under clause 17 of the Exemption Letter JT/NB-II/5047/8454 dated which reads; "That if any stage your title is proved to be defective, the exemption of the plot shall automatically withdrawn and LOA will be entitled to take over land with structure standing thereon without payment of any damages or compensation. (E & 0 are to be taken up at any r 11. Although the exemption rights transferred by LOA i.e, the real owner of the plot, yet the fact that transfer was made conditionally and the Applicant accepted those conditions without any objection. Every purchaser of rights is supposed to have knowledge that the transaction of purchase is subject to those conditions which are contained in the agreement for exemption in the exemption letter. At this stage the contention of Applicants that they were not aware of the terms and conditions cannot be accepted. being so, the Vendee despite being innocent buyer cannot raise the plea of protection on the principle of section 41 of the Transfer Property 1882 which relates to the transfer of property by an ostensible owner. In present case it was a conditional sale and the Applicants bound to fulfill the conditions accepted by them at the time of of exemption in their favour. Moreover, Applicants' rights being of exemption rights cannot exceed the rights vested in the vendor who was not full owner of the plot and did not have proprietary rights of plot. Therefore, for acquiring proprietary rights, the Applicants are subject to conditions the sale as per terms and conditions of exemption. 12. Land for M Johar Town was on the basis of exemption which means that 30% of land of owners acquired for the scheme was exempted in the of developed and they, on certain specific terms and conditions, were allocated developed plots equal to their right of exemption i.e, 30% of their total holding acquired/surrendered. Title of the exempted is, however, on fulfillment of the terms and conditions of exemption. Therefore, Exemptee not a full owner and exemption letter does not constitute an absolute in the plot. The title of the plot remains vested in the LOA till exchange deed is executed. The above-mentioned plot was exempted the of Khasra Nos , and of Mauza Niaz Baig, falling in Johar Town Scheme. gof 14

10 The Applicants were transferred conditions contained in the exemption rights subject to the terms and and were bound to transfer the land against which the exemption was granted, in of LOA by executing an exchange deed after completion of building as per Clause 16 of the exemption letter JT/NB-II/5047/8454 dated (pages ) which reads; "That you shall be required to execute an Exchange Deed, after the completion the building, in accordance with the sanctioned plan. All expenditures i.e. cost of for the execution of this deed and other fees, taxes you." 13. The defect in the ownership original Exemptee's land or plea of fraud or irregularities committed the LOA or the Revenue Department functionaries does not absolve the Applicants from abiding by the terms and conditions of transfer of exemption accepted them, even if the entire transaction and proceedings before of are proved to be fraudulent nor can they raise the of protection on the principle of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, case they fulfills the terms and conditions accepted by them at the transfer of exemption, LOA shall be bound to transfer to them the proprietary rights, notwithstanding the fraud or collusion committed by the LOA officers/officials which the Applicants were not a party. The original paid development charges which as admitted by LOA have duly verified. The Applicants paid transfer fee but the price of the plot was not paid by them or their predecessors to the LOA and instead the Applicants took upon themselves to transfer land to LOA by execution an deed. The vendor has not paid any of the land nor land to the LOA, therefore, the price paid by the Applicants does not include the price of the land which was to be LOA in exchange of the subject plot. The Applicants are liable to transfer the above-mentioned land to the LOA or alternatively in resolve the dispute, to pay the price of the land the plot for of the plot in his favour. 14. In view position, as the Commission from the Revenue, the Applicants entries in the current Revenue Record wherein the subject available in the name of Exemptee, cannot transfer LOA, as per terms and conditions of Allocation they, therefore, to acquire proprietary rights on payment of the price plot development charges already paid by original Exemptee). However, if a later stage the entries in the Jamabandi amended an order or appeal and the land is restored in the name of original they can claim the refund of amount. Page of 14

11 15. In case the plot had been in 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 could not have any right for its regularization. But when the plot was first transferred the applicants, they became entitled retain the plot under these proceedings on establishing that they were bona fide purchasers. The right 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 Applicants on receipt of transfer fee, therefore, the plot as on as per DC's Valuation Table along with for delayed payment, should be charged 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 its own motion or on the application of any, may refer any matter to the Commission for if a prima facie made out." 16. According the DC's valuation table on the price/marla in M Johar Town prevalent on i.e. the date of 1st transfer was 000/- up to 10 Marias and 000/- for every Marla exceeding 10 Marias. Thus,.m. plot comes to Rs.5,50,250/-The Applicant's paid LOA Rs.91,160/- on and 9,690/- on as development charges. Sui gas charges paid are not part of the price of plot and similarly the amounts paid subsequently for building period extensions or any additional amount recovered on account of delayed cannot considered part of the cost of the plot. However, the amount of 1;00, paid as development charges can only considered as part of the of the plot. It was the responsibility of Applicant as above, to get transferred 03K- 07M land to the LOA however as report of Halqa Patwari as well as confirmed by LOA required land is in the name of the Exemptee. It is the Applicants who failed to by the terms and conditions of the exemption, they are liable pay cost deficient land along with mark 5% annum for as specified in clause 2 of the allocation letter dated and clause 3 of the exemption letter dated On account of their failure fulfill the terms and conditions exemption, they will to pay LOA an amount of Rs.20,42,955/- worked out below:- Sr. No. Description Amount 1) of the 11of 14

12 nearest to the date of 1.Transfer Exemption i.e ) Dev. Charges paid on ) Mark up on Dev Charges amounting to 10,446/- RS.91,1601-for the period From to (1st Transfer) 4) Charges paid on ,6901-5) Mark up on Dev Charges amounting to 339/ Rs for the period from to ) Total Development charges with 7) Cost of plot land Charges paid) value - 15/- 8) Add mark up for the period 16,04,3401-1st. transfer of exemption to the date of filing of application ( ) 9) of plot to to paid by the 20,42,955/- resolve the In case any error or omission apparent from the face of the record, is subsequently discovered in the above computation, the Commission may rectify the on its own or an application by either party. 17. From record and the evidence produced by the Applicants it appears that: I. original Exemptee is no more awardee in the revenue record cancellation of mutation No Mouza Niaz 8aig. II. time of purchase Applicants was nothing on the of LOA to indicate any suspicious circumstance calling for regarding mutation. Patwari of LAC office, LOA, along with Muhammad Younas Qanungo and Allah Rakha Naib Tehsiidar visited Patwar Khana and reported on that mutation No existed and was in order. The mutation was cancelled on Although the mutation has been Page 12 of 14

13 declared bogus, no action has been initiated against the Consolidation Officer or revenue officer involved in the scam. III. Applicants purchased the plot in good faith after getting reasonable inquiry conducted from LOA. IV. Applicants had paid full and fair price of the plot to the Vendor for transfer of exemption rights and possession of the They constructed a building on the plot, whose completion certificate had been issued by LOA. Therefore, are held to be a bona fide purchaser of the rights of exemption g by LOA to the original Exernptee. 18. view of the above discussed facts, the record perused and the evidence examined, recommendations of Commission are as under- I. Notwithstanding the fact under 17 ibid, the LOA is authorized to cancel exemption of plot No.955, Block L, M.A. Town, Lahore, it recommended to resolve the dispute on payment to the LOA by the Applicants an amount of 955/- as worked out above price of the land of the in lieu of the above land which to be surrendered to the 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 LOA against order, LOA shall issue, within 30 after the expiry of the prescribed for the or from date of the application by the Applicants, whichever is one or two Challans option of the Applicants for payment of the above in lump sum or in two quarterly installments. III. to the payment of the above determined amount by Applicants, the title the Applicants or their successor in at no stage, shall called in question by LOA and the cases for sanction of building I commercialization, of NOC, further etc. respect of the above plot processed by as per relevant rules/policy in vogue. iv. I case the Applicants to pay the above amount within six from the date of issuance Challan(s), the LOA retrieve the plot but without compensation as envisaged Clause 17 of the Exemption read with the transfer On retrieval of the plot LOA will refund the development received with 1 from the date of the of development charges to the LOA up to the date of 14.

14 LOA's cheque for the refund amount payable to the Applicants. The amount calculated shall be refunded within one month of the retrieval of the plot. v. the Applicants has raised construction on the plot after approval of the building plan, he will be entitled, in case of of plot by 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 Iding plan was not approved by the competent authority. VI. plot files in this case have been fabricated on the basis of Mutations No and 34485, therefore, the abovementioned officials of the LOA and the Revenue Department are equally responsible for loss which should be recovered from after inquiry as per law. LOA, therefore, shall approach the Commissioner Lahore Division Lahore direct the competent authority to determine the revenue officials who prepared bogus and proceed against them for and forgery. LOA shall hold an enquiry in this case to pin point the responsible officers/officials and private persons who allowed exemption and recover loss caused due to fraud. Member, LDAC Chairman, LDAC Announced Page 14 of 14