Law:

Section:

Lahore Development Authority Act (XXX of 1975)-------Preamble---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Commercialization fee, payment of---Demand of surcharge by Review Committee of Lahore Development Authority a long time after assessment and payment of such fee alleging same to be assessed incorrectly at relevant time---Validity---Authority did not have power to review its earlier decision---Review Committee had unilaterally reviewed such matter and issued impugned notice of demand---Proceedings of such Review Committee were coram non judice and without jurisdiction---High Court set aside impugned notice of demand for having been issued without lawful authority. Col. (R) Syed Mukhtar Hussain v. Chairman Federal Land Commission, Islamabad and 3 others 2004 CLC 1019 ref. Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others PLD 1970 SC 1 fol. Mian Nisar Ahmad for Petitioner. Ch. Rashid Ahmad for L.D.A. Date of hearing: 19th March, 2008. JUDGMENT ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---Writ Petition 25204 of 2005 filed by petitioner assails the legality of letter, dated 19-5-2000 purported to have been issued by the Lahore Development Authority with reference to payment of commercialization fee in respect of Plot No.5-C/3, Gulberg-III, Lahore. 2. Petitioner claiming to be the owner of a residential Plot No.5-C/3, Gulberg-III, Lahore, measuring about 6 Kanals, 17 Marlas with a view to getting said plot commercialized, approached respondent No.1 on 25-5-1994, and consequent upon the approval of commercialization by respondent No.5' on 22-8-1994, vide Letter No.1247, dated 2-5-1995, the petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.4,228,472 towards commercialization fee on the subject. Petitioner asserts that his request for payment of aforesaid charges within four instalments was acceded to by the L.D.A., and accordingly, he made payment of initial two instalments amounting to Rs.2,228,472 by means of deposit challans Annexures "C and C.1". As regards, non-payment of remaining amount of Rs.2,000,000 respondent No.1 purported to have imposed surcharge for Rs.40,833. Petitioner is stated to have approached the concerned functionaries…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492