1. Mr. Manzoor Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 admits that the plot in question was reserved for a park and states that the said respondent would be willing to help any agency to develop the park. As regards the allegations that the plot is being used by the police for parking its vehicle contained in para 4 of the petition, it is most regrettable to record that despite service of notice 10 years ago, neither the respondents Nos. 2 & 6 nor any other functionary of the Provincial Government has cared to file an affidavit or even comments explaining their version of facts. As such we are bound to accept the contention of the petitioners affirmed on oath. Indeed Mr. Rajori requested for some more time to obtain assistance but we are convinced that in the circumstances granting of further indulgence would have amounted to gross injustice, ln view of the admitted position, we would direct the respondent No. 6 to pause removal of vehicles (if any) from the plot and the respondent No. 4 should take proper step for development of park. The petitioner stands disposed of. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.