This constitutional petition lays a challenge to the order dated 15.04.2017 passed by the Director General, Lahore Development Authority (LDA). In conclusion, the D.G LDA held that: "On the basis of above narrated facts the undersigned has come to the conclusion that the request of the petitioner for transfer of plot no. 26 and 27, block-P , M.A Johar Town Scheme is not tenable under the law. In view thereof, the Directorate of Land Development-I shall proceed further regarding the cancellation of these plots as the fate of adjustment has already been decided through Speaking Order passed vie No. LDA/DLD-I/ADL/ 7331 dated 8.7.2015."
2. As is evident from the above, the issue which is the subject matter of this petition are Plots No. 26 and 27, Block P, M.A Johar Town Scheme, Lahore. By the impugned order , the D.G LDA refused to transfer , the said plots in the names of the petitioners and directed the Directorate of Land Development to proceed regarding the cancellation of these plots, as according to the D.G, the fate of adjustment had been decided by the order dated 08.07.2015.
Suffice to say that the order on which reliance has been placed was passed in respect of another claimant Irfan Siddiq and that too on a constitutional petition filed by him in which the matter was referred to the D.G for deciding on the application of the petitioners in that case. Therefore, the order was passed on a separate application and in respect of a distinct applicant and not in the case of the petitioners in the instant constitutional petition.
3. A juxtaposition of the order dated 08.07.2015 and the impugned order herein makes it evident that the two orders are exactly the same verbatim. Therefore, the D.G in the present case has merely reproduced the entire order of 08.07.2015 without adding or subtracting any word. This is a gross dereliction of duty on the part of D.G LDA and also offends the directions issued by this Court for deciding the matter through a speaking order after hearing the parties made on 15.03.2016 in W.P No. 14616 of 2014. This ground is sufficient for the impugned order to be set aside without more.
4. However , the impugned order passed by the D.G LDA has no source in law and merely on the application of the petitioners seeking the transfer of the plots in their names, has the D.G proceeded to pass the order without adverting to the historical facts of the case. Not only that the earlier order dated 8.7.2015 has been reproduced as explicated, the reliance in both these orders is on an inquiry conducted by Addl. D.G (H) LDA. No reference to the orders of competent authority requiring the Addl. D.G, LDA to conduct any inquiry have been referred in the impugned order . Thereafter , the officer to whom the inquiry was entrusted, proceeded to decide certain factual aspects of the case. In most part, the conclusion of the inquiry rested upon the misdemeanor and alleged unlawful actions on the part of the officers of LDA. To a question, learned counsel for LDA denied that any actions in respect of those officers had been initiated or concluded. Moreover , the D.G in his order has sought to premise the action on the basis of the two clauses of the exemption letter reproduced as under: "(7) That if at any stage, your title is prove d to be defective or is discovered that the exemption- has been procured fraudulently the allocation of the plot shall stand automatically withdrawn."
(17) That if at any stage your title is proved to be defective, the exemption of the plot shall stand automatically withdrawn and LDA will be entitled to take over the land along with structure stand ing thereon without payment or any damage or compensation."
5. These clauses are standard terms of an exemption letter . However , the counsel for LDA admitted that this is not a case of exemption but of adjustment and which has borne from the adjustment letter dated 16.04.2012. At best, the D.G should have relied upon condition 17 of the adjustment letter which has been brought forth above and which merely gives powers to the relevant officer of LDA to cancel the exemption of the plot if at any stage the title is proved to be defective which is not the case here.
6. To reiterate, the subject matter of this petition relates to an area of 2K-2M. This was subject matter of the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector of LDA on 29.03.2012. With regard to the rest of the 6K-9M of the entire 8K-1M is not in dispute in this petition. That chunk of land has also been adjusted in favour of the petitioners. The documents and other material placed on record and undisputed by LDA clearly show that on 17.8.1981 possession proceedings took place in respect of inter alia Khasra Nos. 13566, 13576 and 13586. It is clearly mentioned in the possession proceedings that symbolic possession had been taken by LDA and this was owing to the fact that these khasras have been mentioned as having Abadi and houses. The petitioners have also attached as Annexure `K' the report of LDA officials which clearly mentions in respect of Khasra Nos. in question that large residential units and one small residential unit stands construc ted on these khasras and the site plan of the land in question has also been attached with the report dated 17.02.2012. This document too has not been denied by LDA. After the acquisition proceedings, the award was announced on 29.03.2012 by the Land Acquisition Collector . Pursuant to this document, the entitlement to adjustm ent under the award of the petitioners stood crystallized. Thereafter on 16.4.2012 the adjustment certificate was issued in the name of the petitioners. Therefore, from the documents of LDA itself, it can be gleaned that the entire proceedings were conducted by the officials of LDA and secondly not one but a number of officials were involved in the entire proceedings. None of these officials has been proceeded against pursuant to an alleged inquiry held at a subsequent time and on which the entire reliance has been placed in the impugned order .
7. Apart from the above, the impugned order passed by D.G LDA has serious consequences. Not only that it has no basis in law and the D.G has not relied upon any provision of law which entitled him to undertake the act of remanding the cancellation of these plots in the name of the petitioners. Also it has the affection of setting aside a lawfully executed adjustment letter in respect of the plots in favour of the petitioners as also amending the award issued by the Land D Acquisition Collector . Without a proper power vesting in the D.G LDA by a statute, it is incredulous to urge that D.G would have such enormous and unbridled power to set aside rights which have been concluded and made to vest in the petitioners.
8. The learned counsel for LDA argued that the instant case entails resolution of disputed facts and ought to be resolved by Courts of plenary jurisdiction. This is a fallacious argument, in that, the entire controversy hinges on the jurisdiction assumed by D.G LDA who set at naught concluded rights and does not involve any factual controversy .
LDA does not dispute the entire gemut of facts brought forth on record by the petitioners. More importantly , LDA has never taken any steps to proceed to cancel the plots in question. Any action which was initiated ever by the officials of LDA was on the application filed by the petitioners (or other similarly placed persons) raising their grievance regarding inaction on the part of LDA to transfer the plots in their names . To this day, LDA has not taken any steps on its own and has merely slept over the issue to the detriment of the petitioners.
9. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.4.2017 passed by D.G LDA is hereby set aside. As a consequence, LDA is directed proceed to transfer the plots, subject matter of this petition, in the names of the petitioners within a period of one month from the receipt of the order of this Court.