It is anticipated that taxes and other fiscal and non-financial benefits will be associated with the decision to grant the construction sector the status of an industry, given that this is now being explored as an option. The primary objective, on the other hand, is to increase the availability of housing at reasonable prices to satisfy the rising demand.
The historically unstructured nature of the housing sector, such as Rudn Enclave in Islamabad and others, presents a significant challenge when attempting to classify it as an industry. In this highly labour-intensive industry, there is a preponderance of ambiguity. This needs to alter to increase formal investment and direct investment from other countries (FDI).
Pervasive problems hamper proper growth in land titles and approval procedures, both of which have their origins in the past. Because of this, conventional financial institutions are discouraged from lending money to homebuilders and individual consumers. There is no region on the planet where housing finance can thrive without institutional funding and investment.
ISSUES IN PAKISTAN
In Pakistan, forming a housing society can be a hassle for enterprises trying to run their operations according to the various norms and regulations. Those with access to opaque information systems and those who can successfully negotiate politically and financially with the regulatory departments and authorities can benefit from the inherent advantages.
The system of regulations that govern housing societies is flawed; it contains loopholes that restrict the transfer of large sums of white money. For instance, a master plan for the city of Lahore is periodically brought up to date. Although technology made it very easy to use the internet, The land cannot be used for residential construction if it has been designated as suitable for agricultural purposes even though it is classified in such a manner on the master plan. A similar situation applies to land that has been set aside for use in industry or any other purpose.
In addition, a planning license must be obtained before determining whether the land in question can be used for house development or not. To determine the legal standing of the land, it is not necessary for the function Object to also be the land’s owner. Suppose the developer does not already own the site. In that case, the developer’s financial stability is evaluated to determine whether or not they have the ability to purchase land and build a housing society on it.
This point does not mark the completion of the planning process. It would take a developer with previous experience and an understanding of the system somewhere in the neighbourhood of a year to secure the planning permit. Just try to fathom how much longer a novice would take to complete the process.
The ridiculousness of the situation is that yet another round of permissions from the relevant departments is necessary. The problem with this is not simply that the process has to be repeated, which wastes time and dilutes the commercial viability. The problem is also that opportunities for fraud arise while the process is being carried out. When selling plots, developers must provide evidence that they have approval from various departments.
This is possible because planning permission can be bought without owning the land. In most cases, purchasers are unaware of this fact, and as a result, the risk is passed on to buyers because developers continue to invest a relatively small amount of stock in the project. The incentive for the developer to continue developing the site disappears once they have received a return on their first investment from the buyers. There are several instances in which developers pull out of a project too early, leaving the buyers to shoulder the financial burden of the loss.
Determining ownership is a time-consuming and laborious process that relies on ancient legal and administrative structures. Even once housing is built, it can be challenging to determine who exactly owns each plot of land within the development. This results in messy land titles, which prevents the ground from appreciating the future. In addition, the customer cannot obtain conventional mortgage financing to construct housing units on the land.
The previous administration’s attempt to digitize property titles could not adequately protect consumer rights. These digital records are typically not in agreement with the records kept by patwaris. The patwari needs to be involved in the process, and the prevalence of fraud in any given region will grow if the patwari in that region is dishonest.
In the event of a disagreement, which frequently occurs with inherited land due to the ineffective land recording system and the lengthy legal procedures, the value of the land is commonly frozen. A disagreement may arise about the ownership of any parcel of land in its third generation. Even if only one of the tens of joint owners refuses to sell their portion of the property, the land titles are still in question.
At the moment, only one window action can be used, and its primary goal is to cut down on the amount of time and complexity required for developing housing societies. Nevertheless, the functioning of this window does not correspond to how it is depicted on paper. On the administrative side, the same old procedures are used. This requires quick money, yet it is still susceptible to fraudulent tactics.