' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner applied for permission to establish D-Class stand on his land situated in Chak No,46/N.B. Gulshan-eBashir, near Qainchi More, Lahore Road, Sargodha before respondent No,2. The respondent No,2 after summoning reports from the concerned forums allowed the petitioner to construct on the land vide letter dated 21-12-2010. In the light of the said permission the petitioner started constructing stand and also approached respondent No,3 for issuance of demand notice for deposit of requisite conversion fee. The respondent No,3 issued a demand notice of huge sum i,e, Rs,43,01,410 against which the petitioner filed a suit for declaration which is pending adjudication before the court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioner requested respondent No,3 to receive commercial fee on annual basis but his request was declined by the said respondent vide order dated 15-7-2011 and sealed the building of the petitioner. The petitioner filed applications before respondent No,1 in this regard which were rejected through impugned orders dated 1-8-2011 and 20-2-2012. Hence, this Constitutional petition is filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are illegal and without lawful authority; that the respondent No,2 issued NOC for establishment of stand and the map/site plan for construction of and class stands has already been approved by the Government of the Punjab; that the respondent No,3 is not justified to create hindrance and stop the construction of stand on the basis of impugned demand; that the Bus Stand has been sanctioned under Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969 and approval was granted on annual basis; that since the approval of bus stand was not granted on permanent basis as such demand for one time commercialization fee was not justified; that the commercial fee may be levied if otherwise necessary on yearly basis.
3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Approval for construction of D-Class stand was accorded to the petitioner inter alia subject to approval of site/building plan by the government of the Punjab as provided under Rule 253-A (c) of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969. In compliance with the said condition when the petitioner submitted application before respondent No,3 for approval of building Plan demand notice in the amount of Rs,43,10,410 was issued to him according to Rule 60(a) of the Punjab Land Use (Classification, Reclassification and Redevelopment) Rule, 2009 which provides as under:--
60. Fee for conversion of land use.---(1) A City District Government or a Tehsil Municipal Administration shall levy fee for conversion of land use---
(a) the conversion fee for the conversion of residential, industrial, pre-urban area or intercity service area to commercial use shall be twenty per cent of the value of the commercial land as per . Valuation table, or twenty per cent of the average sale price of preceding-twelve months of commercial land in the vicinity, if valuation table is not available;
6. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the approval of bus stand was not granted on permanent basis as such demand for one time commercialization fee is not justified and the same be charged on annual basis is concerned, the same has no force as no such Rule is available for payment of conversion fee on yearly basis. Furthermore, once a piece of land has been converted for commercial purposes on payment of conversion fee the status of the same is not affected irrespective of the fact that the commercial or industrial activity is or not conducted thereon. See Rule 67(5) of the Punjab Land Use (Classification, ' Reclassification and Redevelopment) Rule, 2009 which provides as under:--
67. Conversion status---(5)
"Nothing in these rules shall affect the status of a building, plot or land which has been converted on paym ent of the conversion fee under any law for the time being in force."
7. It is borne out from the record that against the demand of conversion fee the petitioner filed a civil suit and continues with the construction work under the garb of the said civil suit. As the petitioner started construction of Class-D stand without payment of conversion fee, therefore, the respondent were fully justified to seal the premises under the law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
8. Resultantly, this petition has no substance and the same stands dismissed in limine.