' This I.C.A. Is directed against the judgment, dated 28-9-2006 passed by learned Single Judge, in chamber, of this Court in Criminal Original No,112-C of 2006 in Writ Petition No,4967 of 1994 in the following facts and circumstances:-- ' Muhammad Shafi respondent No,1 and several others filed Writ Petition No,4967 of 1994 which was allowed by this Court on 17-4-1998 with the following directions:-- ' "The result is that a right has vested in the petitioners vide Letter No,1266/1806-CLI, dated 8-6- 1994- which is an order of the Board of Revenue and the respondents are bound to obey the order of the Board of Revenue and non-implementation of the order means failure to perform the legal obligations by the respondents. As such, the writ is allowed and the respondents are directed to comply with the letter, dated 8-6-1994 of respondent No,4 and put the petitioners back to cultivating possession of their respective land by evicting the trespassers in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. After the restoration of the possession the allotment of land in favour of the petitioners shall also be regularized for proprietary rights under the provisions of the Scheme/Rules subject to the payment of dues according to Policy at the relevant time when the order was conveyed by the Board of Revenue to respondents Nos.l to 3. Costs shall follow the events."
' Against the above mentioned judgment I.C.A. No,95 of 1998 was filed and dismissed by a learned Division Bench of this Court on 14-6-2000. As the direction issued by the learned Single Judge on 17-4-1998 was not implemented, therefore, Crl. Org. No,75 of 2004 was filed by Muhammad Shafi respondent No,1 and the learned Single Judge of this Court after recording following observations in the order, dated 5-11-2004 "As judgment of High Court had attained finality, there was no justification for referring the matter to BOR for seeking advice whether to implement the decision of the High Court or not" directed as under:-- ' "Ex-facie, it appears that respondent No,3 is deliberately and wilfully avoiding to comply with the order passed by the High Court, therefore, let a show-cause notice be issued to him to appear in person before this Court along with his reply as to why he should not be proceeded against for committing Contempt of this Court."
It appears that Baqir Shah appellant challenged the above mentioned orders/ judgments before the Hon'ble Supreme Court through C.P. No,1342 of 2005 but later on opted to withdraw the same on 3-3-2006 which was disposed of by the apex Court in the following terms:- ' "Learned Advocate Supreme Court is present on behalf of petitioner and requests that he may be allowed to withdraw this petition as he would be approaching the learned Member Board of Revenue for the redressal of his grievance. Request accepted. The petition is disposed of in the above terms."
' According to the learned counsel for the appellant after the above mentioned observations of the apex Court the petitioner approached the Board of Revenue and sought clarification as to whether the Original Letter No,1266/1806-CLI, dated 8-6-1994 issued by the Board of Revenue (earlier sought to be implemented through Writ Petition No,4967 of 2004, mentioned above) was still intact and the Board of Revenue on the application of the appellant reopened the matter and in the meanwhile, suspended the said letter. Therefore, the order, dated 17-4-1998 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No,4967 of 1994 upheld in I.C.A. No,95 of 1998 on 14-6-2000 could not be implemented till the final decision by the Board of Revenue, as such the order of learned Single Judge, in chamber, of this Court, dated 28-9-2006 is not sustainable.
2. In order to convince us that after passing of the above mentioned orders, dated 17-4-1998 in Writ Petition No,4967 of 1994, order, dated 14-6-2000 in I.C.A. No,95 of 1998 as well as order, dated 5-11- 2004 in Crl. Org. No,75-W/2004, the Board of Revenue was left with jurisdiction to proceed further or for that to reopen the matter for determining as to whether the said letter was still intact or not, the learned counsel with reference to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 3-3-2006, reproduced above, has argued that through the same order the apex Court by allowing the petitioner to approach the Board of Revenue had in fact conferred jurisdiction on the Board of Revenue to reopen the case and decide the vires of the said letter of the Board of Revenue, and all the above mentioned proceedings conducted in this Court in Writ Petition, I.C.A. As well as Criminal Original, merged in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the impugned order could not be passed by the learned Single Judge without waiting for the decision of the Board of Revenue.
3. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the available record.
4. We are afraid the contention of the learned counsel is not maintainable for the simple reason that vide order, dated 3-3-2006 the Hon'ble Supreme Court only allowed the appellant to withdraw the petition in order to approach the Board of Revenue for redressal of his grievance and said direction cannot be equated with any verdict striking down all the above mentioned orders of this Court. Even otherwise, it is the choice of a party to withdraw any matter before any Court at any time with an option to avail the alternate remedy and the permission to withdraw, if granted, never means that prayer sought before the Court has been allowed. Whereas, it is the ultimate forum which has to decide under the law whether said person has got any right as well as remedy against his grievance. Similarly, we find that the learned Single Judge while issuing contempt notices in Crl. Org. No,75 of 2004 on 4-11-2004 in explicit terms declared the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition and I.C.A. Had attained finality and said letter of the Board of Revenue, dated 8-4-1994 was still intact and in the presence of abovementioned judgments of this Court there was no justification for referring the matter to Board of Revenue for seeking advice whether to implement the decision of the High Court or not. As the abovementioned orders, one passed on 17- 4-1998 in Writ Petition No,4967 of 1994, second, dated 14-6-2000 in I.C.A. No,95 of 1998 and the third order, dated 5-11-2004 passed in Crl. Org. No,75-W/ 2004 have not been set aside so far by the apex Court and are still in field, therefore, the learned Single Judge, in chamber, of this Court, committed no illegality or irregularity and the impugned judgment having been passed within jurisdiction no interference is called for. Even otherwise, we find that this I.C.A. In the light of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case 'West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority through its Chairman v. Chairman, national Industrial Relations Commission" (PLD 1979 SC 912) and Division Bench judgment of this Court in "Liaqat Ali v. Town Committee Abdul Hakim through its Administrator and 5 others" (PLJ 2003 Lahore 1464-DB) in the absence of any conviction, is not maintainable. This I.C.A. Therefore, has no force and is accordingly dismissed in limine.