Related hub: Abdalians Cooperative Housing Society (ACHS) Lahore · Part one of the cartoon: Taalab Ka Jaal / The Pond Net · Source: the order of 31 August 2026 (PDF, 7 pages).
The decision, in one paragraph
In 2025 the Society’s General Body (AGM of 25 May 2025) approved commercialization of plots along Nazria-e-Pakistan Road, the Registrar approved it, plot owners paid the Society’s commercialization fee, the Society issued NOCs, and the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) allowed the change of land use. In March 2026 the next Managing Committee withdrew 13 of those NOCs by letter. The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Lahore held (orders of 1 April, 22 July and 12 August 2026) that the withdrawal was without legal effect. The Society appealed to the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Cooperatives Department, under sections 64 and 64-A of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925: two appeals and one revision petition. On 31 August 2026 all three were dismissed and the Deputy Registrar’s orders were upheld.
What the Society argued
The Society’s counsel argued that the commercialization fee had been introduced at an AGM in 2007 without a specific agenda item; that the approved layout plan still shows the plots as residential; that under bye-law 27(viii) conversion needs an amendment of the master plan by a two-thirds majority of the General Body; that the previous committee therefore had no lawful authority to issue the NOCs; and that the Deputy Registrar had acted on his own motion without hearing the Society.
What the order says
The order (paragraphs 5 to 8) rests on four points:
- The Society’s own acts. The commercialization had been considered by the Society and the competent authorities after LDA’s notification. The plot owners paid the charges, the Society issued the NOCs, and LDA, after its own fees and record, allowed the change of use.
- A later committee cannot undo this by itself. “The subsequent Managing Committee could not, merely on the basis of its own interpretation of the approved Master Plan or Bye-laws, unilaterally withdraw the NOCs already issued by the society after receipt of the prescribed charges.” If the Society believed the NOCs were contrary to the master plan or bye-laws, that had to be “examined and determined through the competent legal and regulatory process.”
- Trust. “The relationship between an authority and the public is based on trust. Once an authority gives permission and a person acts upon it, the authority should not later withdraw or change that permission, especially when the person has completed the required work on its basis.”
- No fraud shown. The Society could not establish from the record that the NOCs were obtained by fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the plot owners, nor that any competent authority had declared them void.
Result: no jurisdictional defect, illegality or irregularity in the Deputy Registrar’s orders; the matters were “devoid of merit” and dismissed.
What the order does not say
Two limits are worth stating plainly, because the WhatsApp debate tends to blur them.
- It does not say that the master plan permits commercial use. It says the objection “may require consideration in accordance with the prescribed statutory and regulatory procedure”, but that this does not make NOCs already issued and acted upon automatically ineffective. The door for a proper General Body process is open; a committee letter is not that process.
- It does not say who paid for the litigation or how much. The Society was the petitioner in all three cases, represented by counsel. What the three cases cost, what the lawyers were paid, and under which resolution, is a question for the Society’s accounts and the next General Meeting, not something the order decides.
The “majority” argument
One reply from the committee’s side was that the members’ majority never favoured commercialization and that a decision taken “against the will of the majority” cannot be validated today. The order answers this indirectly: in a cooperative society the majority speaks through the General Body, and the record before the Secretary showed a General Body approval (25 May 2025) and a Registrar’s approval. A majority that has changed its mind has a lawful route: a resolution of the General Body under the bye-laws. Writing cancellation letters, losing before the Deputy Registrar, and then appealing three times is the opposite of that route.
The cartoon sequel: The Three Appeals
The cartoon series on the IrshadOS Folk Tales channel turns these events into a fictional village, Khushhalpura. Part one, Taalab Ka Jaal / The Pond Net (Urdu), was the “Baja Group” winning the chair with fear of qawwali cafés and petrol pumps, then putting a tandoor in the park and flowerpots on the graves. Part two is this order.
- English: The Three Appeals (3:43) · Short (51 s)
- Urdu: تین اپیلیں (3:47) · Short (54 s)
In the film, Chaudhry Shaukat cancels thirteen road permits the society itself had issued after taking the fee; the small qazi says the cancelling has no effect; he appeals to the big qazi three times, with the lawyer paid “from the box”; the Mulla dismisses all three with the same reasoning as paragraph 7 of the real order, in village words: give permission, take the fee, then turn around, and who will trust you tomorrow? Then Bano asks the three questions above.
The film is fiction. Khushhalpura is not a real village and no character represents any real person, group or society. The order is real, and it is linked above so that anyone can check the cartoon against it.
For residents
- Read the order yourself (PDF). It is seven pages and plain.
- Ask the three questions in writing before the next General Meeting: the cost of the three cases, the fees paid to counsel, and the Committee resolution under which they were filed.
- If you want the master plan question settled, ask for it on the General Body agenda. That is the route the order points to.
Disclaimer: This post summarises a public order of a Punjab government forum in a matter where the Society was the petitioner. It names no individual member or office-bearer. The cartoon is satire for civic awareness; any resemblance to real people or events is a coincidence.
