ANWAAR HUSSAIN, J. Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("the Constitution") the petitioner has challenged the wires of the demand notice dated 12.02.2020 ("the impugned notice") issued by the respondent, Punjab Housing and Town Planning Agency ("the Agency") under the Punjab Housing and Town Planning Agency Land Use Rules, 2017 ("the Rules"), notified by the Housing, Urban Development and Public Health Engineering Department, Government of the Punjab vide notification dated 29.11.2017.
2. Comments were filed in which it has been stated as under:- "Presently, the Govt. of the Punjab, HUD&PHE Department, Lahore has notified PHATA Land Use Rule - 2017 on 29th November, 2017 which are enforced. The classification maps of aforementioned Housing schemes in this regard have also been notified/approved by the Government. In the light of ibid rules, the cases wherein the owners of plot have applied for regularization of commercialization has been regularized by the commercialization committee in its meeting held on 22.11.2019 (constituted under Section 21 of the PHATA Land Use Rules -2017. In which the petitioner name is present at Serial No.14 in approved list for STS-II Gulgasht Colony, Multan."
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are interfering into the lawful business of petitioner by issuing the impugned notice which is illegal because they could not burden him with the enhanced rates of commercialization fee on the basis of Valuation Table issued for the year 2019- 2020 in light of the dictum laid down in the case of 'Iftikhar Ail Malik and 3 others v. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence through Secretary Defence, Rawalpindi and 3 others' (2017 YLR 2111) wherein this Court has declared the demand notice of excessive amount issued by the concerned authority as illegal and ,without lawful authority. Further argued that the impugned notice has been issued by the Agency without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in utter disregard to the mandate of Article 10-A of the Constitution, which protects the civil rights and obligations of the citizens in granting them a fair trial and due process rights. He maintains that due to the illegal demand raised by the respondents the petitioner's right of business and trade enshrined under Article 18 of the Constitution is also being infringed. He lastly, submits that the petitioner is liable to pay the charges which were prevailing at the time of filing the application for commercialization of his property. Reliance is placed on the cases reported as 'Associated Engineering Concern (Private) Ltd. through Chief Executive Officer/Authorized Signatory v. Lahore Development Authority through Director General and others' (PLD 2019 Lahore 478), 'City District Government, Karachi v. Muhammad Irian and others' (2010 SCMR 1186), 'Syed Ali Shah v. Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Defence and 2 others' (1994 CLC 369) and 'Works Co-operative Housing Society, Karachi and another v. The Karachi Development Authority' (PLD 1978 Karachi 529).
4. The only moot point involved is qua the determination of amount of commercialization fee and it is case of the petitioner that his application was made on 19.03.2018 and Rs.5,00,000/- were already deposited, which is admitted by the respondents; however, now they are not applying the Valuation Table applicable on the date of application and raising additional demand and has referred to another notice received, dated 24.05.2021 where an amount of A Rs.2,58,74,640/- has been demanded with the contention that same is not sustainable in the eye of law and judgments referred herein above. During the course of arguments, consensus has been developed that the application of the petitioner dated 19.03.2018 will be taken up by Muhammad Shafi, Deputy Director, who is in attendance, and will be dealt with strictly in accordance with law keeping in view the submissions made at bar today and the dicta of the Hon'ble Court applicable in this regard.
5. In view of the above, the impugned demand is set aside and respondent No.2 is directed to decide the application of the petitioner dated 19.03.2018 in accordance with law. Till such time that the said application is decided in accordance with law, no coercive measures will be taken against the petitioner.
6. Disposed of in above terms.