2023 PLP 1507 (CLC)

SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J.

Succinctly, the facts, as gleaned out from the instant petition, are that the petitioner purchased two (2) plots bearing Nos.214 and 215, Attaturk Block, New Garden Town, Lahore and formal transfer letter was issued on 23.11.1994. The petitioner applied for extension in building period on 28.11.2022 but his request was verbally turned down with the observation that the NAB marked a caution against the said plots. Being aggrieved from non-extension in building period, the petitioner has filed this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since neither the petitioner is required in any inquiry by the NAB in any capacity nor he has ever been confronted with any incriminating material by the said forum, his request for extension in building period could not be turned down. Adds that according to the report and parawise comments, submitted on behalf of the respondents, LDA Authorities are relying upon a letter of NAB, issued way back on 11.05.2010, summoning record for investigation against Seth Nisar Ahmed and others but the same cannot be used against the petitioner especially when neither he nor the property owned by him is subject of that investigation. Further adds that it is not possible that an inquiry/investigation started way back in the year 2010 is still pending whereas the petitioner has been deprived of his right for extension in building period.

3. Learned counsel, representing the: respondent-LDA, states that according to Section 23 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, any act of a government functionary during investigation/inquiry of a platter by the NAB entails penal action, hence request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to. Adds that since the record of property is with the NAB, LDA is unable to grant the request of the petitioner. Further adds that bona fide of LDA Authorities is evinced from the fact that the letter was issued by the Deputy Director, LDA, Lahore to the Investigating Officer enquiring as to whether the investigation of the subject matter had been concluded or not but no response has been given by the NAB authorities. Argues that without impleading the NAB, the petitioner's request cannot be considered.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents, appended with this petition.

5. Firstly taking up the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent-LDA that without impleading the NAB, present writ petition is not maintainable, I am of the view that since extension in building period is to be granted by the LDA, NAB has nothing to do with the said issue, thus the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent-LDA is accordingly spurned.

6. Now reverting to the merits of the base, I have noted that the request of the petitioner was turned down due to caution marked by the NAB against the said plots but while filing the report and parawise comments, they have not appended any document whereby the NAB directed the LDA Authorities to mark caution against the said properties rather they have appended two letters, one relating to summoning of record and the other written by the LDA Authorities Ito the Investigating Officer to apprise 'about the fate of inquiry/investigation. The said documents, by no stretch of imagination, can be considered as proof of caution marked by the NAB.

7. There is no cavil with the proposition that any action of a government functionary during pendency of inquiry/investigation by the NAB in a matter entails serious consequence but the same cannot be used until and unless the NAB restrains the department concerned to do a particular act. Moreover, mere extension in building period does not permit the petitioner to further alienate the said property and if request of the petitioner is not acceded to, he would be burdened with the penalty for delay in applying for extension in building period.

8. It is relevant to note that in a number of cases the NAB has not been able to conclude inquiry/investigation pending before it despite lapse of years and years whereas on the other hand public at large has been made to suffer as they are not allowed to deal with their own properties according to their own wishes. If the NAB fails to conclude an investigation within the next decade, what remedy would be available to the petitioner.

9. For what has been discussed above, instant petition is accepted and inaction on the part of the LDA Authorities to extend building period' of the petitioner is declared illegal and unlawful. Consequently, respondent No.2 is directed to entertain the request of the petitioner for extension in building period and proceed therewith accordingly. No order as to costs. MH/M-32/L Petition allowed.