1-

I"

BEFORE LAHORE DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY COMMISSION,LAHORE /

PRESENT:

Mr. Javaid Akhtar, Chairman

Mr. MuhammadYousaf, Member

Reference No. 65/2017

Mr. Muhammad Farooq Malik and Muhammad Naseem Arif Sslo HajiMuhammad Sadiq RIo House No. 30 Tariq Block Garden Town,Lahore

Applicants

Vs.

1. Lahore Development Authority through Director General, 467/0-11,Main Boulevard, M.A. Johar Town, Lahore.

2. Director, Land Development-I, 467/0-11,Main Boulevard, M.A. JoharTown, Lahore.

RespondentsOrder

Muhammad Farooq Malik and Muhammad Naseem Arif Sons ofHaji Muhammad Sadiq submitted an application at One Window on13.03.2017 vide receipt No. 2413913 for filing reference to the LOACommission. The Authorized Officer under sub-section (4) of section 32 ofLOA (Amendment) Act, 2013 read with sub-rule (1) of the Rule 7 of theLahore Development Authority Commission Rules, 2014, referred the caseto the Commission which was received on 28.09.2017. It was entered in theInstitution Register at Serial No.65 of 2017. Notices were issued to theApplicants, the Director General LOA and Deputy Director LandDevelopment-I, Land Acquisition Collector, LOA and Patwari Halqa ThokarNiaz Beg and other witnesses. The statements of the Applicant Mr. FarooqAhmad Malik, Mr. Muhammad Aslam slo Imam Din and Mian MuhammadArshad witnesses were recorded on oath and record of Patwari and LACbranch of LOA was consulted. The documents produced by the Applicants,Patwari Halqa Thokar Niaz Beg and LAC were examined and photo copiesthereof were placed on the reference file. File No. JT/NB/II 5662 related toplot No. 758, Block G-IV, MA Johar Town attached with the reference by theDirectorate Land Development-I (hereinafter referred to as plot file) wasexamined. The noticewas also sent to Rizwana Robilla Saleem on her givenaddress through TCS which was received but she did not appear.

1

Ir-

2. Mst. Rizwana Robilla Saleem w/o Faiz Saleem Rio Flat No. 24-BGulshane Iqbal Karachi filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge Lahoreagainst the order of the Civil Court dated 14.11.2015 whereby Mr.Muhammad Mati-ur-Rehaman, Civil Judge had accepted an applicationunder order VII rule 11 CPC, filed by the Applicants in the present Referencerejecting plaint of Rizwana Robilla Saleem. The Civil Court had rejected thesuit filed by Mst. Rizwana Robilla Saleem against the Applicants, who wereRespondents No. 11 and 12 in that case, with the observationsthat they werebonafide purchasers. The appeal filed by Mst. Rizwana Robilla Saleem wasdismissed by Muhammad Riaz Bhatti Addl: District Judge Lahore vide hisorder dated 21.03.2016 to the extent that it was not maintainable against theRespondents/Defendants No. 5 to 12. The Appellants in the presentReference as mentioned above were cited as Respondents/Defendants atS. No. 11 & 12. (Certified Copy of Order of the Additional District Judge isavailable at pages 393-398 of the Plot File). Therefore on the basis of recordproduced and orders of the court, there is no bar on considering theReference sent by LDA.

3. According to the reference filed by the LDA;

"One Mst. Jamila Sattar W/o Abdul Sattar submitted applicationfor exemption of plots against her claimed ownership of landmeasuring 06 Kanal and 14 Marla falling in Khasra No. 13616 (OOK-02M) and 13617 (06K-12M) of Mouza Niaz Baig, Lahore on the basisof sale deed registered with Sub-Registrar, Lahore Cantt. videdocument No. 5141, Book No. 01, Volume No. 199 dated 14.04.1977.Mutation No. 49664 was sanctioned in favour of Jamila Sattar W/oAbdul Sattar on 16.01.1996. The said sale deed was executed byHidayat Khan S/o Imam Din in favour of Jamila Sattar W/O AbdulSattar.

Exemption was granted on 15.07.1998 by the then Director LandDevelopment-I vide para 25/N and plots No. 17 & 21 block-N eachmeasuring 420 SQM were allocated vide para 26/N. Plot No. 17 Block­N was already allocated against file No. JTNB-II-2101, therefore plothas been exchanged and plot No. 758 block-G/4 of M.A. Johar TownScheme was allocated in lieu of plot No. 17 Block-N. Exchange letterwas issued in favour of Jamila Sattar W/O Abdul Sattar vide letter No.JT-NB-II/5662/11477 dated 01.08.1998 (Page 47/C). Exemptionletterof plot No. 758 block-G/4 was issued in her favour vide letter No.LDAlJTNB-II/5662/14857 dated 29.08.1998 (Page 57/C). Possessionorder was issued vide letter No. DLD/LDAlJTNB-II/5662/14939 dated31.08.1998 (Page 63/C). Physical possession was handed over to

2

Jamila Sattar on 08.09.1998 and physical possession letter was issuedvide No. EO/3702 dated 10.09.1998 (page 65/C). /

A General Power of Attorney was executed by Mst. Jamila SattarW/o Abdul Sattar in favour of Mr. Muhammad Aslam S/o Imam Dinregarding plot No. 758 block-G/4 of M.A. Johar Town, Lahoreregistered with Sub-Registrar, Lahore vide document No. 4351, bookNo. 04, Volume No. 667 dated on 19.09.1998 (Page 67/C).

Mst. Jamila Sattar W/o Abdul Sattar through GPA MuhammadAslam S/o Imam Din transferred plot No. 758 block-G/4 in favour of Mr.Malik Muhammad Farooq & Muhammad Naseem Arif S/o MalikMuhammad Sadiq vide letter No. JT/NB-11/5662/18905 dated12.10.1998 (Page 115/C).

A civil suit titled "Muhammad Ali S/o Hidayat Ali VIs. Mst. JamilaSattar W/o Abdul Sattar" was filed in year 2001 wherein it was prayedthat the impugned sale deed in favour of Jamila Sattar registered videdocument No. 5141 dated 14.04.1977 and mutation sanctioned on thebasis of said sale deed may be adjudged as void and cancelled. Thesaid suit was dismissed on 10.06.2003 by the Mst. Asma Tehseen,Learned Civil Judge, Class-III, Lahore due to non-deposit of processfee.

Again a civil suit titled "Muhammad Ali S/o Hidayat Ali VIs MalikMuhammad Farooq etc." was filed by the plaintiff in year 2003 and thesame was dismissed on 13.11.2005.

During the processing of another file No. JT-NB-II-1430, it hasbeen revealed that excess exemption has been granted againstKhasra No. 13617 Mouza Niazbaig, Lahore. The breakup of exemptiongranted in Khasra No. 13617 is as follows:S# File No. Area Name of

Exemptee1. JT-NB-II-1430 1K - 13M Atique-ur-

Rehman2. JT-NB-II-2259 OK - 3M - 110Sft Mst. Iffat-ur-

Rehman3. JT-NB-II-4362 OK - 3M - 153Sft Hamid Sharif4. JT-NB-II-4357 OK - 3M - 87Sft Mst. Zahida

Khurshid5. JT-NB-II-5662 6K - 12M Mst. Jameela

Sattar6. JT-NB-II-4313 OK - 3M - 113Sft Khan Akbar7. JT-NB-II-4566 OK - 7M - 107Sft Muhammad

Sharif8. JT-NB-II-83 OK - 3M - 153Sft Saba ul Hassan

3

~I -

9. JT-NB-II-84 OK - 3M - 153Sft Mehmood ul/ Hassan

10. JT-NB-II-3096 OK - 7M - 107Sft Javed Akhtar11. JT-NB-II-5663 6K - 12M Mst. Hameeda

Begum12. JT-NB-II-4364 OK - 7M - 23Sft Muhammad

Sharif13. JT-NB-II-787 OK - 6M - 1975ft Karam Din14. JT-NB-II-1918 OK - 6M - 1975ft Rashid Ahmed15. JT-NB-II-1431 1K - 13M Sarwat Sultana16. JT-NB-II-3132 OK - 3M - 110Sft Riaz Ahmed17. JT-NB-II-4725 OK - 8M - 112Sft Abu Zar Rashid18. Total Exemption 19K - 19M - 475ft

Granted

Total area of Khasra No. 13617 is 10 Kanal 15 Marla, whileexemption has been granted of an area 19 Kanal 19 Marla and 47SQFT. So excess exemption of an area measuring 9-KanaI4-Marla 47SQFT has been granted. Due to this excess exemption show causenotices were issued to the files of junior vendees including file No.JTNB-II-1430.

In response to the show cause notice transferee of plot No. 209block- Rl2 of M.A. Johar Town, Lahore which was allocated in file No.JTNB-1430 filed a civil suit titled "Rizwana Saleem Vsl LOA, JamilaSattar etc." wherein it was prayed that show cause notice dated09.10.2012 may be declared null and void and LOA may be directed tocancel the exemption granted to Jamila Sattar and & Hameeda Begumwho got the exemption on the basis of impugned sale deed No. 5141dated 14.04.1977 and sale deed No. 5107 dated 13.04.1977respectively. The plaintiff also submitted reply of show cause noticeand challenged the two sale deeds on the basis of following grounds.

I. The executants of sale deed No. 5141 dated 14.04.1977and sale deed No. 5107 dated 13.04.1977 (Hidayat AliKhan S/o Inam Din) (mentioned at Sr. No.5 & 11 of abovementioned break-up) died on 18.06.1968 (The copy of thedeath certificate of Hadayat Khan is provided). While thosesale deeds were registered in 1977 (almost 9-years afterthe death of the executants) which is quite astonishing. Thesale deed from deceased person cannot be executed sothis shows that sale deeds of these files are fabricated,

I •

--_._------------------ -------

II. Volume No. 199 of above mentioned sale deeds has beensealed by concerned Sub-Registrar due to being boqus,The copy of report of sealed Jild No. 199 is also provided.

III. The "chant" of Khasra No. 13617 shows that there is noexcess sale in relevant Khasras and all the sale deedshave been executed by the legal heirs of Hadayat Khan.

Malik Muhammad Farooq and Muhammad Naseem Arifsubmitted application under order VII rule 11 CPC in the above saidcase which was accepted and the court of Mati-Ur-Rehman, LearnedCivil Judge, Lahore rejected the suit of the plaintiff vide order dated14.11.2015. Being aggrieved a civil appeal No. 857/2015 was filed on24.11.2015 before the Additional District and Session Judge, Lahore.The appeal was decided by Mr. Muhammad Riaz Bhatti, AdditionalDistrict Judge, Lahore on 21.03.2016. The operative part of the ordersis reproduced as under:-

": the appeal is accepted to the extent of defendantNo. 1 to 4 (LDA, DGLDA, DLD-I and DDLD-I)and caseis remanded to learned trial court with the direction totheplaintiff to amend theplaint by excluding pleadingsagainst defendants No. 5 to 12 (Jamila Sattar,Hameeda Begum.. Malik M. Farooq & M. NaseemA 'f) "rl ....

A writ Petition No. 25566/2016 titled "Mst. Rizwana RobilaSaleem VIs LOA etc. was also filed by Mst. Rizwana Robila Saleemwhich was disposed of with the following direction/order:-

"This petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, therespondent is directed to conclude the proceedings ofShow Cause Notice at the earliest preferably within aperiod of 30-working days from the date of submissionof copy of this order".

In the light of above, narratedfacts, the sale deed No. 5141 dated14.04.1977 and sale deed No. 5107 dated 13.04.1977 used in file No.JT-NB-II-5662 (6K-12M) & JT-NB-II-5663 (6K-12M) respectively,appear to be fake/fabricated. On the basis of above mentioned factualcontroversy, this office cannot entertain the request of the transfereesof plot No. 758 Block-G/4 allocated in file No. JT-NB-II-5662 forissuance of NOC. Therefore, the transferees of Plot No. 758 Block-G/4of M.A. Johar Town, Lahore have submitted application for fillingreference before LOA Commission formed under Section 32 of .the

5

Lahore Development Authority (Amendment) Act 2013 (XXXVI of2013)." ;-

4. The LOA has recorded following observations in the reference:

I. "LAC has reported at para No. 107/N that Mst. Jamila Sattar w/oAbdul Sattar is an amended awardee of land measuring 06-Kanal14-marlas comprising khasra No. 13617 Mouza Niaz Baig andpossession of the said land has been taken over by the LOA.

ii. Estate Branch at para No. 129 & 130/N has reported that there isan entry existing in possession register that possession of plot No.758 Block G-4, M.A. Johar Town has been handed over to Mst.Jamila Sattar W/o Abdul Sattar on 08.09.1998 and as per their sitereported there is a single storey building stand constructed at plotNo. 758 Block-G-4 M.A. Johar Town and a Tuition Centre is runningat the house and Applicants has under taken to get it vacated in duecourse of time.

III. Revenue Branch also verified all the deposited amounts including1st and Final Demand Notice, Development Charges and transferfee etc. at para 109/N and 155/N respectively.

iv. Town planning branch has also reported at para No. 135/N thatBuilding Plan of plot No. 758 Block-G/4 has been sanctioned on05.05.1999 and Completion Certificate has also been issued on29.08.2001.

v. The Scrutiny list is consulted and the instant file is not included inthose files which are under scrutiny.

vi. The instant file is not included in the list of missing files which werepublished in newspaper in the year 2009."

5. One of the applicants Mr. Muhammad Farooq Malik recorded hisstatement on oath and contended that he and his brother MuhammadNaseem Arif, jointly purchased plot No. 758 Block G-IV MA Johar TownLahore.Heand his father collected information about the plot from LOAofficebut did not check the revenue record. The negotiations for purchase of theplot were held with Mr. Muhammad Aslam in the show room of ArshadElectronics. They purchased the plot for Rs.14,00,0001- He admitted hissignature under the endorsement on the transfer application but contendedthat he did not read the statement contained in the endorsement.Muhammad Farooq Malik in support of his contention that sale deed No.

6

5141 was executed during the life of Hidayat Khan produced a copy ofMutation No.1808 through which land during consolidation was allocated toHidayat Khan and claimed that the document of mutation bears the thumbimpression of Hidayat Khan. He also contended as per diary no. 3107 dated03.02.1979 the death of Hidayat Khan was reported and Mutation ofinheritance No. 4130 was sanctioned on. 03.06.1979. Therefore the saledeed was registered much earlier i.e. on 14.04.1977.He stated that in thepast letters were issued three times for this plot by LOA i.e. for HBFCorporation loan in 1999, Completion Certificate on 31.07.2001 and NOC on01.03.2013.

I •

Mr. Muhammad Aslam slo Imam Din RIo House No. 46 Street No. 15Mohalla Nabi Park Ravi Road Lahore in his statement on oath contendedthat Mst. Jamila Sattar issued a GPA in his favour regarding the plot. In facthe had purchased GPA (Mark-II) from her for Rs.13,OO,OOOI-. He sold the

.. - .-,'----' -"..------.-.--~.-......

said plot against a sum of Rs. 14,00,0001- to Col. Farooq. He admitted hissignature on Agreement to Sell (Mark-I). He received the amount in thepresence of Mian Muhmmad Arshad.::H-e"claimed that he had met originalexemptee Jamila Sattar who issued GPA but did not remember the meetingplace. He admitted that he did not sign the GPA. He also claimed that hewent to LOA office for transfer of the plot.

Mian Muhammad Arshad slo Jalal Din RIo House No. 42 Executive Block,Paragon City Lahore admitted that he is doing property business for the lasttwenty five years. He also owns a show room of Home Appliances. Hecontended that deal for sale of the plot was finalized in his show-room"Arshad Electronics". The Plot was sold against a sum of Rs.14,10,OOOI-andcash was handed over in his presence. He admitted his signature on theAgreement to Sell (Mark-I). He denied that he knew MstJamila Sattar or hadever met her. Mian Muhammad Arshad also claimed that he hadacquaintance with Muhammad Aslam GPA holder because of commonhobby and interest in birds.

Muhammad Aslam in his statement had admitted that he was an employeeof Railway in lower grade and after retirement was selling birds. TheCommission is of the view that in fact the plot was sold by Mian MuhammadArshad and Muhammad Aslam was used as "Front Man". He could not havehad Rs. 13,00,0001- in the year 1998 to purchase GPA from Mst. JamilaSattar.

6. Mr. Abid Hussain slo Muhammad Innayat Ullah Hose No. 18, Block R­III MA Johar Town Lahore SPA of Rizwana Robilla Saleem was directed toappear and record his statement. He appeared and contended that Plots No.209 and 210 Block R-II MA Johar Town were allocated to Mr. Attique

7

Rehman. He got GPA from him and paid Rs.5,00,000/- for each plot. He gotcompleted the exemption proceeding etc. Later on he transferred these plotsin the name of his wife Tanya Abid who further alienated plots to RizwanaRobilla Saleem. When LOA issued notice to him claiming that he is juniorpurchaser he contacted Muhammad Ali son of Hidayat Khan who informedhim that sale deeds in favour of Mst. Jamila Sattar and Hamida Begum werebogus. Muhammad Ali further informed that he had filed a civil suit claimingthat sale deeds were bogus but since these were not affecting his interestsnegatively he did not follow the suit and it was dismissed as withdrawn.Thereafter Mr. Abid Hussain filed a civil suit which was remanded by theDistrict Court to Civil Court after deleting the names of Applicants asrespondents. Mr. Abid Hussain witness claimed that the copy of Identity Cardof Mst. Jamila Sattar available at pages 00061-62 of plot file, Mark 11.1inReference file, is bogus because against the number mentioned in the 10Card, no 10 card was issued in the name of Mst. Jamila Sattar. She was aminor, when she supposedly purchased land in 1977, since her year of birthwas 1962 according to 10 Card (Mark-III). The address mentioned in the cardis also fake. The Registered sale deeds in the names of Jamila Sattar andHamida Begum are bogus.

7. As per report and Chaant submitted by Patwari Halqa Niaz Ba~ar1L_ ..IV) Hidayat Khan slo Imam Din shared 50% ownership in Khata No. 1996

~••~ .~"•. _, •.F__'~··-·

with Akbar and Afsar Sslo Mehtab. They were also owners of land falling inKhasra Nos. 13616 (10K-15M) and 13617 (10K-15M). Later Muhammad Alislo Hidayat Khan inherited the land of his father vide Mutation No. 4135. Hesold land measuring 05K-07M vide sale deeds No. 6239 dated 19.03.1979,No. 6329 dated 22.02.1979, No. 4500 dated 02.03.1979 and No. 4520 dated20.07.1979. Similarly in Khasra No. 13616 (10K-15M) he sold landmeasuring 05K-08M through sale deeds No. 6239 dated 19.03.1979, No.4950 dated 07.03.1979, No. 4690 dated 04.03.1979 and No. 4630 dated03.03.1979. Mutations were sanctioned before year 1982 to incorporate thesale transactions in the Revenue Record. After execution of the abovementioned sale deeds and sanction of mutations, no further transaction ofland could be incorporated in the Revenue Record. But Mutation No. 39664was allegedly sanctioned by Revenue Officer on 16.01.1996 incorporatingsale of land measuring 06K-14M from Khasra No. 13616 (00K-02M) andfrom KhasraNo. 13617 (06K-12M) in pursuance of sale deed No. 5141 khataNo. 199 pages 178-182 dated 14.04.1977. The mutation cannot be enteredand sanctioned because the land from these Khasra Numbers were alreadysold and mutations had been sanctioned. Secondly the sale deed was beingincorporated and mutation entered after about 19 years which could haveraised suspicion in the mind of the Revenue Officer who had sanctioned themutation unless he was party to the fraud. The registered sale deed itself

8

- I

had suspicious circumstances because Jamila Sattar as pointed out bywitness MianAbid Hussain was minor at the time of registration of sale deedas per birth year mentioned in her ID card but used to obtain exemption andlater on transfer etc.

8. Under the order of Collector dated 20.02.1998 as recorded on Awardpart B S.N.998 in pursuance of Mutation No. 39668 (sale deed dated13.04.1977)Hameeda Begumwlo Abudl Rashid and Jamila Sattar MutationNo. 39664 (sale deed dated 14.04.1977)were declared awardees in KhasraNo. 13617 to the extent of 06K-14M each. The above facts were also notkept in view by LAC who allowed amendments in the Award on 25.02.1998on the basis of mutations (Mark V ). Prima facie the entries in the Award are______. I

based on the bogus documents.

9. As reported by Patwari Halqa as well as perusal of record shows thatthe Patwari Halqa on 17.04.1998 submitted a report to the higher officers forreview of mutations No. 39667, 39668 and 39672 which were sanctioned onthe basis of sale deeds purportedly executed by Hidayat Khan. But as perRecord of Patwari Halqa produced so far these mutations have not beencancelled and still exist as such in the record. Although the fate of thesemutations is to be decided by the competent RevenueOfficer or a competentcourt of law, but due to controversy over the title of the land claimed byoriginal the exemptee, the Applicants cannot surrender the land to LDA ascommitted in the Exemption Letter dated 29.08.1998 read with transfer letterdated 12.10.1998.

10. The perusal of plot file revealed that Mst. Jamila Sattar wlo AbdulSattar resident of 2. Poonch Road Saman Abad Lahore filed a writ petitionNo. 28318/97 in the Lahore High Court claiming that her application forexemption was not being decided by LDA. Honorable Justice Mr. Saeed-ur­Rehman ordered in the writ petition that the Applicant will file an application"for inclusion of her name in the list of eligible claimants and adducenecessary proof in support thereof'. The Honorable Judge also directedLDA"to decide the application filed by the Applicant within a week strictly onmerit." Mst. Jamila Sattar filed the application on 12.12.1997. However onher earlier application dated 08.11.1997 LAC had reported that the Applicantwas not an awarded owner. But on the new application after the order of theHigh Court LAC office did not report about the ownership of the Applicant butjust recommended to allow the exemption since the High Court had orderedto grant exemption within one week (Para 16/N plot file). Whereas theHonorableHigh Court had not passedsuch an order. It had ordered to decidethe application on merit. Deputy Director Exemption endorsed the proposalfor exemption of two plots measuring one kanal each on 16.04.1998 butDirector Land Development approved exemption on 15.07.1998 which

9

shows that there was no emergency on account of the High Court order.The allocation of Plot No. 17 Block N JoharTown was allowed on 18.07.1998but the Exemption Letter of Plot No. 758 Block G-IV was issued on29.08.1998 vide letter No. LDAlJT/NB-11I5662/14857 because plot No. 758Block G-IV was exchanged with Plot No. 17 Block N with the approval ofDLD on 30.07.1998.

11. There is no doubt from the perusal of record and statements ofwitnesses that LDA allowed exemption to Mst. Jarnila Sattar when her landwas exceeding the total ownership of the Seller in Khasra No. 13617. Boththe sales in Khasra No. 13617 were specific for the Khasra Number. LACrecorded the alleged order of the Collector dated 20.02.1998 in the Awardpart, B but did not point out that the sale in two sale deeds was exceedingthe total area of Khasra No. 13617. In the file there is no report of LACregarding the ownership of original exemptee before grant of exemptionexcept one report at Para 16/N of the plot file by some official, whorecommended exemption on the basis that in Khatooni No. 1996 landmeasuring 14K-12M is still in balance for exemption. Whereas the land hadalready been sold in excess in Khasra No. 13617.

12. Jamila Sattar got exemption on 15.07.1998 and executed GPA infavour of MuhammadAslam registered by Sub-Registrar on 19.09.1998.Theapplication for transfer of plot was filed on 10.10.1998, in less than a month.Therefore Mr. Muhammad Aslam slo Imam Din and Mian MuhammadArshad who transferred the plot to the Applicants were most probablyinvolved in the fraud.

13. LOA issued a show cause notice to Mst. Rizwana Robila SaleemwloSaleem Faiz Rio House No. 24-B, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Allah Noor ApartmentsKarachi that why the exemption of plots No. 209 and 210 Block R-2 JoharTown be cancelled because the original exemption to Mr. Attique Rehmanslo Muhammad Bashir was found in excess of total land of Khasra No.13617. Mst. Rizwana Robina Saleem filed a civil suit followed by an appealand both were decided against her upto the extent of claim against thepresent applicants as discussed in para 2 above. Writ Petition No.25566/2016 filed by Mst. RizwanaRobila Saleem against the order of DistrictJudgewas dismissed as withdrawn with the direction to LOAto conclude theproceedings of Show Cause notice within 30 days. It is pertinent to mentionthat Muhammad Ali slo Hidayat Ullah had filed a civil suit claiming that saledeeds in the name of Jamila Sattar and Hamida Begum were fake. The suitwas dismissed on 13.01.2005 by Civil Judge Lahore as withdrawn.

Therefore the fate of show cause notice issued to Mst. Rizwana is yet to bedecided. Her SPA Mr. Abid Hussain has filed an application on 08.12.2015

- I

but so far no order has been passed by LOA on that Application. HoweverLOAhas preferred to send the Reference to the Commission on the requestof the Applicants, on the grounds that sale deeds No. 5141 dated 14.04.1977and 5107 dated 13.04.1977, are fake and fabricated.

14. There is nothing on the record where it has been alleged that theApplicants were involved in any fraud. LOA has also neither challenged theexemption order dated 29.08.1999 nor the claim of applicants Mr.Muhammad Farooq Malik and Muhammad Nasim Arif as bonafidepurchaser. LOA has only claimed that sale deed No. 5141 dated 14.04.1977and sale deed dated No. 5107 dated 13.04.1977 are bogus. Prima facie theregistration of these sale deeds seems doubtful because these were relatedto Registerwhich has been impound by the Commissioner being bogus'.Butthese sale deeds have not been got cancelled by the competent authority.At the time of purchase of plot by the Applicants there was nothing on recordwhich could attract suspicions. Therefore, the Commission despite thealleged 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 reference toresolve the dispute. The above mentioned provisions of the Act arereproduced below:-

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

"(5) The Commission shall consider and make appropriaterecommendations on matters pertaining to;

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

. Iaccording to the nature of each case."

15. Exemption of the plot was transferred to the Applicants by LOA onthe same terms and condition on which it was held by the Exemptee.Relevantportion of transfer letter No. JT/NB-II/5662/18905 dated 12.10.1998is reproduced below:

11

"I am to inform you that the exemption of the plot cited above hasnow been transferred to your name on the terms and conditions, it

/'

was held by the original exemptee."

The Applicants accepted the terms and conditions of the transfer. They boththemselves signed the endorsement on the transfer application dated10.10.1998 (page 0081 of plot file No. JT/NB-11/5662)which reads;

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

16. In the affidavit at page 0093 of plot file No. JT/NB-II/5662, filed withthe transfer set, the Applicants undertook to abide by the terms andconditions of the exemption of the said plot between the original exempteeand LDA and to comply with all orders and directions and instructions etc. inforce or issued from time to time by the LDA. Therefore, whatever rights havecome to vest in the Applicants, those did not constitute full and absolute titlein the plot. The Applicants were bound to fulfill the conditions laid down inthe Exemption letter No.LDAlJTNB-11/5662/14857dated 29.08.1998 issuedto the original exemptee. The Applicants, therefore, must have been awareof the fact that their purchase was subject to the incident of those conditionswhich are contained in the exemption letter issued by the Authority. The LDAhad a right to cancel the allocation/exemption of plot under clause 17 of theExemption Letter No. JT/NB-II/5662/14857 dated 29.08.1998 which reads;

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

17. Although the exemption was transferred by LDA i.e. the real ownerof the plot, yet the fact remains that the transfer was made conditionally andthe Applicants accepted those conditions without any objection. Everypurchaser of exemption rights is supposed to have knowledge that thetransaction of purchase is subject to those conditions which are contained inthe agreement for exemption or in the exemption letter. At this stage thecontention of the Applicants that they were not aware of the terms andconditions of exemption cannot be accepted. This being so, the Vendeesdespite being innocent buyers cannot raise the plea of protection on theprinciple of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882which relates to

~ ~ 12

LL· vi'},,2.01.- •

the transfer of property by an ostensible owner. In the present case it ~~s aconditional sale and the Applicants are bound to fulfill the conditionsaccepted by them at the time of transfer of exemption in their favour.Moreover, Applicants' rights being vendee of exemption rights cannotexceed the rights vested in the Vendor who was not full owner of the plot anddid not have proprietary rights of the plot. Therefore, for acquiring proprietaryrights the Applicants are subject to the conditions of the sale as per termsand conditions of exemption.

18. Land for M.A. Johar Town Scheme was acquired on the basis ofexemption which means that 300/0of the land of owners was exempted fromcompulsory acquisition and they, on certain specific terms and conditions,were allocated developed plot equal to their right of exemption i.e. 300/0oftheir total holding acquired/surrendered. Title of the exempted plot is,however, transferred on fulfillment of the terms and conditions of exemption.Therefore, the exemptee is not a full owner and exemption letter does notconstitute absolute title in the plot. The title of the plot remains vested in theLOA till exchange deed is executed. The above mentioned plot wasexempted against the land of Khasra Nos. 13616 and 13617 of Mauza NiazBaig, falling in M.A. Johar Town Scheme. The Applicants were transferredexemption rights subject to the terms and conditions contained in theexemption letter and were bound to transfer the land against which the

. I'

exemption was granted, in favour of LOA by executing an exchange deedafter completion of building. Clause 16 of the exemption letter No. JT/NB-1115662/14857dated 29.08.1998 (page 000057-58) reads;

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

19. The defect in the ownership of the original exemptee's land or plea offraud or irregularities committed by the LOA or the Revenue Departmentfunctionaries does not absolve the Applicants from abiding by the terms andconditions of the transfer of exemption accepted by them, even if the entiretransaction and proceedings before transfer of exemption are proved to befraudulent nor can they raise the plea of protection on the principle of section41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In case they fulfill the terms andconditions accepted by them at the time of transfer of exemption, LOA shallbe bound to transfer to them the proprietary rights, notwithstanding the fraudor collusion committed by the LOAofficers/officials and the original exempteeto which the Applicants were not a party. The original exemptee paid thedevelopment charges which as admitted by LOA have been duly verified.TheApplicants paid transfer fee but the price of the plot was not paid by them

13

. '

.'

or their predecessor to the LOA and instead the Applicants took uponthemselves to transfer land to LOA by execution of an exchange deed. Thevendor has not paid any price of the land of plot nor transferred land to theLOA, therefore, the price paid by the Applicants to the vendor does notinclude the price of the land which was to be transferred to LOA in exchangeof the subject plot. The Applicants are liable either to transfer the abovementioned land to the LOA or alternately in order to resolve the dispute, topay the price of the land of the plot for transfer of title of the plot in theirfavour.

20. The claim of LOA is not correct that as per Chhant available at page367 of plot file there is no excess sale in Khasra No. 13617. The perusal ofthis Chhant shows that sale deeds in the name of Jamila Sattar and HamidaBegum have not been considered while preparing the Chhant. In view of theposition explained above, as has been noticed by the Commission from theRevenue record, the Applicants cannot now get transfer the land as requiredunder the conditions of Exemption letter to the LOA. Because of controversyover the Sale Deeds registered in favour of Jamila Sattar. Therefore, theyhave to acquire proprietary rights on payment of the price of the plot (minusdevelopment charges already paid by original exemptee) as decided in othersimilar cases. However if at any stage in a decision of the competentauthority or court of law it is held that sale deed No. 5141 dated 14.04.1977was genuine then they will be entitled to refund the amount which they would

, Ihave deposited to acquire proprtiery rights. In case the plot had been in'thename of the original exemptee who got it allocated allegedly on the basis offraud and collusion, the plot would have been certainly cancelled and shecould have not any right for its regularization. But when the plot wastransferred to the Applicants they would have been entitled to retain the plotunder these proceedings on establishing that they were bona fide

rpurchasers. The right of exemption i.e. to get the title of the plot bytransferring ownership of above mentioned land, was conferred by the LOAwhen the LOA transferred exemption to the Applicants on receipt of transferfee, therefore, price of the plot as on 12.10.1998as per ~C's Valuation Tablealong with charges for delayed payment, should be charged from them inorder to resolve the dispute as envisaged in sub section (4) of section 32 ofthe LOA (Amendments) Act, 2013 which reads:

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

21. According to the ~C's valuation table notified on 17.06.1998prevailing at the time of 1st transfer i.e. 12.10.1998, the price per Marla in

«:

14

• I

'1

M.A. Johar Town, was Rs.70,000/- at the front and Rs.60,000/- for everyMarla exceeding 10 Marla. Thus price of 420.75 sq.m. plot comes toRs.13,02,142/-. By adding Rs.7574/- as corner plot charges the price of plotworks out to Rs.13,09,716/- The Applicant's predecessor paid to the LDARs.95977/- on 03.04.1998 and Rs.5003/- on 22.08.1998 as developmentcharges. Sui gas charges paid are not part of the price of the plot andsimilarly the amounts paid subsequently for building period extensions or anyadditional amount recovered on account delayed payments cannot beconsidered part of the cost of the plot. However, the amount of Rs.1,00,980/­paid as development charges can only be considered a part of the price ofthe plot. Itwas the responsibility of the Applicants as discussed above, to gettransferred 03k-07M land to LDA and it is the Applicants who failed to abideby the terms and conditions of the exemption, therefore, they are liable topay mark up at the rate of 17.50/0per annum for delayed payment asspecified in clause 2 of the allocation letter dated 18.07.1998 and clause 3of the exemption letter dated 29.08.1998. On account of their failure to fulfillthe terms and conditions of exemption, they will have to pay to the LDA anamount of RS.50,69,395/- (Fifty lacs, sixty nine thousands, three hundredand ninety five only) as worked out below:- .

Sr. No. Description Amount (Rs.)

1) Price of the 420.75 sq.m. plot as per 13,09,716/-District Collector's Valuationnearest to the date of Transfer of , ,

Exemption i.e. 12-10-1998

2) Dev. Charges paid on 03.04.1998 95,977/-

3) Mark up on Dev Charges amounting to B 835/-,Rs.95,977/- for the period From03.04.1998 to 12.10.1998 (1st. Transfer) ,

4) Dev. Charges paid on 22.08.1998 5003/-

5) Mark up on Dev. Charges amounting to 122/-Rs.5003/- for the period

From 22.08.1998 to 12.10.1998 I

6) Total Development charges with markup 1,09,937/-

7) Cost of plot land (Total value - Dev. Rs.11,99,779/-Charges paid)

8) Add mark up for the period from the date 38,69,616/-of 1st. transfer (12.10.1998) of

, \ 15 ~.R~""2-_').c1

\\

_I_

• i

exemption to the date of filing ofapplication (13-03-2017)

/

9) Total cost of plot to be paid by the 50,69,395/-Applicants to resolve to resolve thedispute

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

22. From the available record and the evidence produced by theApplicants and other witnesses it appears that:

I. The Applicants were not party to the fraud committed by thelandmafia in the name of Mst. Jamila Sattar who fraudulently got theexemption of the land when major portion of this land wasalready sold.

II. Mst. Jamila Sattar's name has also appeared on a number ofother bogus and fraudulent exemptions. She could not be tracedon her given addresses and residents presently living on theseaddresses informed that she never lived there. There arechances that only the name of Mst. Jamila Sattar was used byland mafia to get bogus exemption in her favour. A list of all thosecases be prepared in which exemptions were granted to her and .1the cases be reviewed.A case be registeredwith Anti-CorruptionEstablishment or NAB after holding the inquiry by LOA. In mostof cases as Ahal Commission or Identifier the name of AsgharAli Chaudhary has appeared in documents. He therefore mayalso be involved in the inquiry to reach a fair conclusion.

III. The Applicants purchased the plot in good faith after gettingreasonable inquiry conducted through their father from LOA.

IV. At the time of their purchase there was nothing on the record ofLOA to indicate any suspicious circumstance calling for inquiryregarding double exemption. The validity or otherwise of saledeeds No.5107 dated 13.04.1977 and No. 5141 dated14.04.1977 and mutations entered in pursuance of these deedshas not been decided by the competent authority or court of law.

IV. TheApplicants had paid full and fair price of the plot to the vendor

for transfer of exemption rights and possession of the plot.VI. The Civil Court has declared them Bona fide purchasers and

appeal against this observation has been dismissed against theApplicants by the court of Additional District Judge.

Therefore, they are held to be bona fide purchasers of the rights of exemptiongranted by LOA to the original exemptee. /

23. In view of the above discussed facts, the record perused and theevidence examined, recommendations of the Commission are as below:-

I. Notwithstanding the fact that under clause 17 ibid, the LOA isauthorized to cancel exemption of plot No.758, Block G-IV, M.A.Johar Town, Lahore, it is recommended to resolve the disputethat on payment to the LOA by the Applicants an amount of Rs.50,69,395/-as worked out above as price of the land of the plot,in lieu of the land required to be surrendered, the Applicants willbe allowed to retain the plot and proprietary right of the plot willbe transferred in favour of the Applicants.

ii. In case no appeal is filed by the Applicants or by the LOAagainstthis order, the LOA shall issue, within 30 days after the expiry ofthe time prescribed for the appeal or from the date of theapplication filed by the Applicants, whichever is earlier, one ortwo Challans at the option of the Applicants for the payment ofthe above amount in lump sum or in two quarterly installments.

iii. Subsequent to the payment of the above determined amount bythe Applicants or after final orders of the court of competentjurisdiction, the title of the Applicants or their successors ininterest at no stage, shall be called in question by the LOA andthe cases for sanction of the building plan, commercialization,issuance of NOC, further transfer etc. in respect of the above plotshall be processed by the LOA as per relevant rules/policy invogue.

iv. In case the Applicants fails to pay the above amount within sixmonths from the date of the issuance of the Challan(s), the LOAmay, retrieve the plot but notwithout compensation as envisagedin the clause 17 of the Exemption Letter read with the transferletter. On retrieval of the plot LOA will refund the developmentcharges received with markup @ 17.5% from the date of thepayment of development charges to the LOA up to the date ofthe LOA's cheque for the refund amount payable to theApplicants. The amount so calculated shall be refunded withinone month of the retrieval of the plot.

v. If the Applicants have raised construction on the plot afterapproval of the building plan, they will be entitled, in case ofretrieval of the plot by LOA, to receive compensation for the

• I

_I

construction or any other development made by them asdetermined by the Chief Engineer, UDWing, LDA.1-Iowever, nosuch compensation for the structure will be payable in case thebuilding plan was not approved by the competent authority.

vi. Director General, LDA shall get an inquiry conducted regardingall exemptions granted to Mst. Jamila Sattar and review the allthe exemptions and take decisions as per law and policy asmentioned in para 22 (ii) above. An inquiry shall also be held inthe instant case and disciplinary action initiated against theOfficers, Officials of LDA and private individuals who using thecourt orders as a pretext allowed exemptions to Mst. JamilaSattar without checking the relevant record.

vii.The Commissioner Lahore Division will be asked to take adecision about the genuineness or otherwise of Mutations Nos.No. 39667, No. 39668 and No. 39672 of Mouza Niaz Baig sincea report has been submitted by Revenue Staff for reviewof thesemutations as per their claim

24. The recommendations of the Commission made in para 23 regarqingthe inquiry or findings on the Revenue Record by the competent officers ora court of law will in no way be used to obstruct the implementation of para23 (i) above if the Applicants deposit the amount of Rs. 50,69,395/- within inthe given time.

i

(MUham~.)...'W/'ll

Member, LDAC Chairman, LDAC

Announced

12.02.2018

18