Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SHAH and 3 others VS Respondent: THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Collector Rahimyar Khan
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Dr. Javed Iqbal Title:MUHAMMAD SHAH and 3 others vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through
Collector Rahimyar Khan Case No.: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,968 of 1985 Date of Judgment:1989-06-07 Reported As: 1990 SCMR 381 Result: Petition withdrawn Judgment ORDER ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Learned counsel has placed on record Letter No, 2443-79/3438-CIII, dated 19th July, 1979 from the Board of Revenue to the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur. It reads as follows:-- "From ' The Secretary (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab. To The Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur. ' Subject: Allotment of state land on Abadkari Conditions after imposition of ban by the former Bahawalpur Government Regularization thereof. ' Reference: Correspondence resting with your memo. No, Co1/6-34P11/346, dated 28th March, 1979. ' Memorandum ' After giving due consideration to the points raised in your aforesaid memorandum the Board of Revenue, Punjab, has, in consultation with solicitor to Government, Punjab, made following clarification:-- ' Obviously, those persons who have withdrawn their civil suits and are ready to fulfil all requirements, for the purchase of land allotted to them as Abadkars, they are entitled to purchase the land and, therefore, approved price of the land may be accepted from them. But those persons whose cases are pending in various Courts cannot be forced to pay the price ar.d, therefore, their matters may be kept in abeyance till the decision of their cases. ' (Sd). ' Secretary (Colonies),
---
## Page 2
' Board of Revenue, Punjab." ' It is stated at the Bar that the petitioners want to avail the opportunity afforded in the afore- quoted communication. Accordingly he has sought to withdraw this petition for leave to appeal. He has also expressed an apprehension that if relief is not given to the petitioners in accordance with the terms of the said communication the petitioners might be left with no remedy. While permitting the petitioners to withdraw this petition for leave to appeal we are of the view that the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel is unfounded. The fresh refusal might give a fresh cause of action with reference to the offer in question. In that context the petitioners if agrrieved might seek remedy in accordance with the law including the extraordinary remedy in tae writ jurisdiction of the High Court. ' With these observations this petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Petition withdrawn.