1. The petitioner filed petition seeking relief that the respondents Nos. I to 5 and also respondents Nos.6 to 7 may be directed to re-open the gate and entrance of the open space which has been closed without any lawful purpose and relieve the villagers, their children and petitioner from this trouble. The petitioner alleged in the petition that he is permanent resident of village Natha Khan Khoso, 'situated near Jinnah Terminal Karachi Airport, consisting of 250 houses. It is further alleged that the villagers were using the vacant space covered by Civil Aviation Authority since beginning for the use of children of school, students of college to reach their school and colleges, male and female even children, patient for taking to the hospital from this open space. He alleged that on 6-2-2003 the Civil Aviation Authority under the directions of the respondent No,1 and with collusion of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 closed this open space by raising wall on it without having any useful purpose, but with intent to create difficulties and trouble for the villagers, their children and petitioner. Heard Mr. Ghulam Rasool Rind, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Faisal Kamal, learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is one of the villagers and residing in the village known as Natha Khan Khoso. The villagers were using the open place of land owned by the respondent and have right to use the same without any hindrance from the respondents.
2. The learned counsel further argued that the respondent has raised the wall on the land owned by the respondent on 6-2-2003, which resulted that the open space that the petitioner and other villages are not in a position to use the open space. On the other hand, Mr. Faisal Kamal, learned counsel for the respondents, categorically denied that the residents of the village were ever using the open place of land owned by the Civil Aviation Authority and that petitioner or villagers have acquired any right of way at any point of time. He further argued that Civil Aviation Authority has acquired this piece of land in 1925 and since then is in absolute possession of it. The learned advocate argued that the petitioner under the garb of present proceeding is seeking permission to justify their act to trespass over the property of Civil Aviation Authority which petitioner is attempting from few months. In order to secure the valuable land owned by the respondent from encroachment the respondents have built the wall which was pulled down by the petitioner in connivance with some land grabber which respondents rebuilt recently.
3. We have gone through the memo. Of petition and considered the arguments of the learned advocate. In order to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction the petitioner ought to have established his legal right in the subject-matter. The petitioner has no right of any nature in the land, which admittedly belongs to respondents. The petition on this sole ground is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner through this petition is seeking enforcement of his alleged easement right and the petitioner if have any grievance the proper remedy for the 'petitioner is to seek relief before another forum as the disputed question of facts cannot be entertained in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. For the above reasons the petition stands dismissed.