Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 4699
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Raheel Kamran)
Parties: AGRICS Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Province of Punjab etc
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Raheel Kamran), officially reported as 2026 LHC 4699. In this matter between AGRICS Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Province of Punjab etc, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Raheel Kamran) DECISION DATE: 15-07-2026 CASE DETAILS: Development Authorities 49830/22 ============================================================ Stereo H C J D A 38. Judgment Sheet IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Writ Petition No.49830 of 2022
AGRICS Cooperative Housing Society Limited
Versus
Province of Punjab, through its Chief Secretary, and others
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing 23.06.2026 Petitioner by: M/s Waqar A. Sheikh, Qurat -ul-Ain, Malik Muhammad Abbas Farooq and Tasawar Sohail Bhalli, Advocates. Respondents by: M/s Mohammad Osman Khan and Salman Asif Warraich, Assistant Advocates General, Punjab. M/s Haris Azmat and Sahibzada Muzaffar Ali Khan, Advocates for respondent -LDA with Tahir Farooq, D.G. LDA, Abdul Razzaq Director (Law) LDA and Ali Bin Sohail, Director H-X, LDA.
RAHEEL KAMRAN, J.: Through this petition in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Constitution’) the petitioners have prayed as under: - “In view of above and submissions made at bar, it is most respectfully submitted that the acts and omission of LDA to coerce the Society to deliver the possession of the public building sites and inclusion of transfer clause in the mortgage deed and not to approve building plan of a school proposed by the Society; and powers and functions of LDA under Section 13 of LDA Act, 1975 and Rule 24 of LDA Private Housing Schemes Rules, 2014 and LDA's role as a regulator be declared illegal, unlawful, unconstitutiona l, arbitrary; misuse, abuse and colourful exercise of authority of LDA, ultra vires to Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, Cooperative Societies Rules, 1927 & Bylaws of the Society and in violation of Articles 3, 4, 9, 10, 10 -A, 14, 18, 23, 24 and 25 of the C onstitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and be set aside; and the in consequence LDA be directed to approve the building plan of a school/hospital proposed by the Society in the welfare of the members of the Society. W.P. No.49830 of 2022 2
It is also prayed that till t he final disposal of the instant Writ Petition, the Respondent LDA be restrained from taking possession of the Property/Plots of the Petitioner/Society or obstructing the construction of school in any manner whatsoever. Any other relief which Honourable Co ut deems fit and proper may kindly be granted.”
2. Brief facts of the case, as gathered from the contents of the petition and the documents appended thereto, are that the petitioner, AGRICS Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Lahore, is a body corporate registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 vide registration certificate dated 27.01.1982 and is governed by its own bye -laws, whereas the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab is the regulatory authority of the Society. It has been asserted that after completion of requisite formalities, the layout plan of the Society was approved by the Lahore Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred as “LDA”) in the year 1987, subject to the condition that 30% of the saleable area of the scheme shall be mortgaged in favour of LDA. In pursuance thereof, a mortgage deed dated 12.08.1990 was executed, whereby certain plots were mortgaged in favour of LDA as security for provision of services in the housing scheme. It is further the case of the petitioner that subsequently, when the management of the Society intended to establish a school and other public utility facilities for its residents, it came to know that a n area measuring 160 Kanals , 09.88 Marla comprising open spaces and sites reserved for public buildings including school, dispensary, mosque, post office and graveyard, had also been included in the mortgage deed. According to the petitioner, the said prop erty was never transferred in the name of LDA through any separate transfer deed and its possession has always remained with the Society , however, LDA has been insisting upon taking over possession thereof. It has also been alleged that the Society approac hed LDA for approval of building plans for construction of a school and other facilities but the same were not approved on the ground that the reserved amenity sites had not been transferred in favour of LDA. The petitioner has further contended that the p rovisions of Section 13(6) of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred as the “LDA Act”), which empowers LDA to demand transfer of W.P. No.49830 of 2022 3
public building sites, were inserted by legislative amendment in the year 2013 and the LDA Priv ate Housing Schemes Rules, 2014 were framed thereafter, i.e., much after the approval of the Society ’s scheme in 1987 and the execution of the mortgage deed in 1990 and that at the time of execution of the mortgage deed, no statutory provision existed requ iring a cooperative housing society to transfer amenity sites to LDA. It has also been asserted that LDA has been auctioning amenity/public building sites of cooperative societies including those of the petitioner, to private individuals for commercial gai n and that the income generated therefrom is diverted to LDA’s own housing schemes and administrative budgets rather than being spent on the development of the very schemes from which such sites were taken. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid stance of LDA, the petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contend ed that LDA has unlawfully withheld approval of the building plans for a school and other public facilities in order to compel the petitioner -society to transfer the amenity sites in its favour. He submit ted that, at the time when the petitioner’s housing sc heme was approved and the mortgage deed was executed, neither the LDA Act nor any other statutory provision required transfer of such sites to LDA. According to the learned counsel, the transfer clause incorporated in the mortgage deed is without lawful au thority, unsupported by consideration and ineffective to convey title. It was further argued that the petitioner being a cooperative housing society, is governed by the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 and that LDA exercises only regulatory jurisdiction ove r the scheme without acquiring proprietary rights in the amenity sites. Learned counsel further contend ed that even otherwise such sites are held for public purposes and cannot be commercially exploited or alienated by LDA contrary to the object of their r eservation. He has also assailed the constitutional validity of Section 13(6) of the LDA Act and Rule 24 of the LDA Private Housing Schemes Rules, 2014 (hereinafter to be referred as the “ Rules of 2014” ) on the ground that they violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. W.P. No.49830 of 2022 4
4. Learned counsel for the respondent -LDA, on the other hand, supported the impugned actions. He submit ted that transfer of amenity sites formed part of the regulatory framework governing private housing schemes even prior to insertion of Section 13(6) in the LDA Act and that the petitioner-society voluntarily executed the registered mortgage deed containing the transfer clause after itself proposing that the mortgage deed should serve as the transfer deed. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner obtained final approval of its housing scheme on that basis and, after having enjoyed the benefits thereof for more than three decades, is estopped from questioning the validity of the transaction. He further contended that registration under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 does not exempt the petitioner-society from the planning and development regime established under the LDA Act. It is also argued that amenity sites vest in LDA for public purposes and are dealt with strictly in accordance with law and the applicable policy framework . Lastly, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. The learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, while adopting the submissions advanced on behalf of respondent -LDA, has also opposed the constitutional challenge to Section 13(6) of the LDA Act and Rule 24 of the Lahore Development Authority Private Housi ng Schemes Rules, 2014. He submitted that the said provisions are constitutionally valid, do not suffer from any legal infirmity and that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any ground warranting their invalidation. 6. I have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions, examined the record and perused the statutory provisions as well as the precedents relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. From the submissions advanced at the Bar, the following questions arise for determination: (i) Wh ether the petitioner, being a cooperative housing society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, is governed exclusively by that enactment or is also subject to the regulatory regime established under the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975 in matters relating to planning, land use and development of its housing scheme; W.P. No.49830 of 2022 5
(ii) Whether the registered mortgage deed dated 21.08.1990, particularly Clause 5 thereof, validly transferred the amenity sites in favour of the Lahore Development Authority; (iii) Whether Section 13(6) of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, inserted through the Amendment Act of 2013, operates retrospectively so as to affect the petitioner’s rights; (iv) Assuming the transfer to be valid, whether the Lahore Development Authority acquires an unrestricted right to alienate or commercially exploit the amenity sites irrespective of the public purpose for which they were originally reserved; (v) Whether the constitutional challenge to Section 13(6) of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975 and Rule 24 of the Lahore Development Authority Private Housing Schemes Rules, 2014 requires adjudication in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. Before examining the specific legal questions involved in the present case, it is appropriate to note that in the contemporary urban context, a housing scheme is not merely an aggregation of residential plots but a planned human settlement intended to provide its inhabitants with a safe, healthy and dignified living environment. Modern urban planning recognizes that the quality of life of residents depends not only upon the availability of residential accommodation but equally upon the existence of essential public amenities such as educational institutions, healthcare facilities, parks, playgrounds, mosques, graveyards, roads, open spaces and other community services. These amenities are integral to the concept of planned development and are reserved to promote the collective welfare of the community rather than the private commercial interests of any individual or authority. The superior Courts have consistentl y recogni zed that the constitutional guarantee of the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution extends beyond mere animal existence and encompasses the right to live with dignity and to enjoy those facilities and amenities which are indispensable to a meaningful life. In the case of “Ms. Shehla Zia and others v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693) , it was observed that the expression “life” includes all such amenities and facilities which a person living in a free country is entitled to enjoy with dignity. Lik ewise, in Human Rights Case No.17599 of 2018 (2019 W.P. No.49830 of 2022 6
SCMR 247) , the Supreme Court reiterated that the right to life includes access to basic amenities and living standards necessary for human dignity . The Islamabad High Court in the case of “Dr. Salman Akbar Malik v. Federal Government Employees Housing Authority through Chairman, Islamabad and others” (2024 YLR 2685) emphasized that housing authorities are under a corresponding obligation to provide the amenities envisaged in the approved layout plans for the benefit of residents. It is in the light of these settled principles that the controversy involved in the pres ent case is to be examined. 8. In this context, it is imperative to observe that the development of a housing scheme and the timely provision of amenities within it is a reciprocal, two -way process. A housing scheme becomes an attractive, functional and meaningful settlement only when basic amenities are readily available. Residents naturally prefer to reside in a locality where schools, healthcare facilities, parks, Masjid, graveyard, open spaces and other civic facilities exist. Conversely, the provision of such amenities gives real worth, utility and meaning to the scheme itself. The timely provision of these amenities is directly connected with the residents’ fundamental right to live with dignity as guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution. 9. It is useful , before proceeding further, to have a glance at the existing statutory and regulatory framework governing approval of private housing schemes. The LDA Private Housing Schemes Rules, 2014 prescribe a structured procedure for approval commencing with an application under Rule 6, evaluation and NOC from WASA 1 under Rules 7 and 8 and preparation of the layout plan in conformity with the planning standards under Rules 9 and 10 — the latter obliging the Authority to ensure reservation of open spaces, graveyard, commercial areas, public building sites, internal roads, a solid -waste-management site and a grid station. Following scrutiny of ownership documents under Rules 22 and 23, the layout plan undergoes technical scrutiny under Rule 24, which require s the sponsor, upon clearance, to furnish a transfer deed in the prescribed form for the area under roads, open spaces, parks, graveyards, solid waste
1 Water and Sanitation Agency W.P. No.49830 of 2022 7
management and other services, together with not less than fifty percent of the public building sites (su bject to a ceiling of two percent of the scheme area), and separately a mortgage deed securing twenty percent of the scheme’s plots as security for completion of development works. Rule 26 conditions the grant of final approval upon execution of the transf er deed and mortgage deed before the Sub -Registrar and their incorporation in the revenue record, whereupon a formal letter of sanction issues under Rule 27. Rule 48 obliges the sponsor to complete development works within timeframes calibrated to the size of the scheme, whereas Rule 51 provides a weightage-based, milestone-linked mechanism for release of the mortgaged plots tied to progressive completion of water supply, sewerage and drainage, roads, electrification, gas connectivity, horticulture and soli d waste management. It is thus evident that transfer of amenity sites to LDA, free of cost, has consistently formed an integral precondition to approval of a private housing scheme, both under the regulatory practice prevailing when the petitioner’s scheme was sanctioned and under the statutory Rules subsequently framed in 2014 and that the Rules themselves contemplate a continuing, staged relationship rather than a one-time transfer. 10. In the above constitutional and jurisprudential backdrop, the Court now turns to the first question, i.e., the extent of the regulatory jurisdiction of LDA over a cooperative housing society. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner, being a co operative housing society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, is governed exclusively by that enactment and that LDA exercises only regulatory functions without acquiring any proprietary interest in the amenity sites. To better understand the respective scopes of both statutes, it is appropriate to first examine their preambles, which are reproduced below: THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1925: Preamble: Whereas it is expedient to provide for the formation, registration and regulation of cooperative societies for the promotion of thrift, self help and mutual assistance amongst agriculturist or other persons with common economic or social interests and fo r achieving better standards of living and for the matters incidental thereto; It is hereby enacted as follows:-”.
W.P. No.49830 of 2022 8
THE LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1975. Preamble.- Whereas it is expedient in the public interest to establish a comprehensive system of metropolitan planning and development in order to improve the quality of life in the area of Lahore Division, establish an integrated metropolitan and regional develop ment approach and a continuing process of planning and development, to ensure optimum utilization of resources, economical and effective utilization of land and to evolve policies and programmers relating to the improvement of the environment of housing, i ndustrial development, traffic, transportation, health, education, water supply, sewerage, drainage, solid waste disposal and matters connected therewith and incidental thereto; It is hereby enacted as follows:-”
It is manifest from the above that t he Co operative Societies Act, 1925 primarily regulates the constitution, administration and internal management of cooperative societies, whereas the LDA Act regulates planned urban development, land use, zoning and approval of housing schemes within the metropolitan area. The rights and obligations arising under one enactment neither supersede nor exclude those created by the other. Furthermore, Section 13(5)2 of the LDA Act expressly prohibits any person3, local body or Government agency from preparing or exec uting a planning or development scheme within the controlled area except with the concurrence of the Authority. The language employed by the legislature particularly the term “person” is comprehensive enough to include a cooperative housing society intending to develop a housing scheme within the territorial jurisdiction of LDA. Equally significant is Section 46 of the LDA Act, which provides that the LDA Act shall prevail over other laws in case there is any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions. For reference, Section 46 ibid is reproduced below: “46. Act to prevail over other laws. - In the event of any conflict or inconsistency b etween the provisions of this Act and the provisions of any other law, the provisions of this Act shall, to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency, prevail particularly in matters of master plan, land use and housing functions.”
2 Section 13(5). A person, local body or Government agency shall not, within the area, prepare a planning or development scheme except with the concurrence of the Authority. 3 Section 3(t) “person” includes an individual, company, firm, institution, Government agency, co-operative society or association of individuals whether incorporated or not; W.P. No.49830 of 2022 9
The legislative intent manifested through the above provision admits of little ambiguity. The LDA Act is a special enactment governing metropolitan planning, land use and development within the controlled area of Lahore and to the extent of any inconsistency, expressly overri des every other law relating to those subjects. Consequently, the maxim specialia generalibus derogant4, heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has no application where the legislature itself has enacted an overriding clause determining the field of operation of the statute. Guidance is drawn from the judgment of this Court in the case of “Amer Bakht Azam and others v. Cooperative Model Town Society (1962), Ltd., Lahore and others ” (PLD 2007 Lahore 636), wherein it was held that approval, regulation and modification of housing schemes situated within the controlled area of Lahore fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of LDA notwithstanding that the sponsoring body may be a cooperative society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. The said judgment correctly recognizes that the two enactments operate in distinct and independent fields. Registration of a cooperative housing society under the Cooperative Societies Act, therefore, does not confer immunity from compliance w ith the planning laws applicable to every housing scheme established within the controlled area. Relevant extract from the above judgment is reproduced hereunder for the facility of reference:- “14. The petitioners have challenged the jurisdiction of the Authority to grant the impugned approval. The order passed in excess of jurisdiction is always amenable to challenge, in writ jurisdiction. The objection of the petitioners that the approval or modification in the master plan can only be sought from the Town Municipal Administration, Gulberg and the impugned approval of the LDA, being without jurisdiction, has no legal sanctity, is not convincing.. The approval and. sanction of a scheme, which fall s within the area of City District Government, Lahore vests with LDA, according to Rule 3 of Punjab Private Site Development Schemes (Regulation) Rules, 2005. According to Rule 12 (ibid) a modification in the sanctioned scheme has to be made by observing t he procedure prescribed for the sanction of the new scheme. Section 13 (5) of the LDA Act, 1975 is relevant, which is reproduced hereunder:-
4 Special things derogate from (or override) general things. W.P. No.49830 of 2022 10
"13. Preparation of Scheme -(1) The Authority shall, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, prepare schemes D for the area or any part thereof. (2) --------------- (3) --------------- (4) --------------- (5) No planning or development sc heme shall be prepared by any person or local body or Government agency within the area except with the concurrence of the authority. " 15. The planning of a scheme within the City District Government of Lahore, requires concurrence/approval of the Authority and any modification in an existing scheme, according to the provisions of section 14 of the LDA. Act, 1975, vests with the Authority. Section 38 of the LDA Act further provides for approval from the Authority for conversion of the property to different use or purpose other than one provided under a scheme. The provisions of LDA Act, 1975, as per section 46, prevail over other laws. LDA Act, 1975 has thus overriding impact in respect of any inconsistent provision in Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 20 01. Respondents Nos.1 & 2 have approached the right forum (Respondent No.7) for the approval/conversion of the use of their property”
The foregoing discussion leaves no manner of doubt that the petitioner continues to remain subject to the Cooperative Soc ieties Act, 1925 in matters relating to its constitution and internal administration. However, the planning, approval, regulation and development of its housing scheme are governed by the LDA Act and the regulatory framework framed thereunder. Consequently, the contention that the petitioner stands excluded from the operation of the LDA Act cannot be accepted. 11. The second question is whether the registered mortgage deed dated 21.08.1990, particularly Clause 5 thereof, validly transferred the amenity sites in favour of LDA. The petitioner has assailed the transfer on the grounds that the deed was procured through coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation; that, at the relevant time, there existed no statutory requirement requiring transfer of amenit y sites; that the alleged transfer was unsupported by consideration; and that a mortgage deed, by its very nature, could not operate as an instrument of conveyance. The record demonstrates that while processing the petitioner ’s application for approval of its housing scheme under the prevailing regulatory framework, LDA required the W.P. No.49830 of 2022 11
petitioner to execute both a mortgage deed and a transfer deed in respect of the land reserved for roads, open spaces and public buildings. To better understand the context, communications dated 15.08.1988 and 05.12.1988 are significant, extract whereof are reproduced below for the ease of reference: BY POSTAL CERTIFICATE LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY U.D. WING, METROPOLITAN PLANNING SECTION, NO. CMP. 65-S/LDA/235/88 DATED: 15/8/88 To Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Cheema Honorary Secretary, Agrics Co-op. Housing Society, 16-B/Ist Floor Chouburji Centre, Lahore
MORTGAGE DEED FOR AGRICS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY PHASE-II, RAIWIND ROAD, LAHORE
The scrutiny of layout plan of your scheme has been finalized. You are requested to enter into an agreement with LDA at the earliest. You are requested to please arrange the following documents for further processing of the Scheme. 1. Three copies o f mortgage deed duly completed and signed by the owner/attorney as per specimen enclosed. 2. Average per year per Kanal sale price of the land assessed by the concerned Tehsildar. 3. Seven prints of the final layout plan. 4. Transfer deed for the Lands like open spaces, public bui ldings, roads, grave yards…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.