' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J. The petitioner through' the instant constitutional petition has assailed the act of omission on the part of the respondents to clear all sorts of rubbish lying at Block No,E-I, Johar Town, Lahore and for completion of the project/park.
2. It is contended that 150 Kanals of land situated in Block No,E-I, Johar Town, Lahore was earmarked for the purpose of park but respondents Nos.3 and 4 have shown neglect, as a result thereof the site meant for the park has become a storage of rubbish.
3. The respondents contested the petition and separately filed reply as well as parawise comments. Respondent No,5 has submitted that the filing of the instant petition is an act of sheer blackmailing and the respondent No,5 has been shown as Tehsil Nazim while he was not Tehsil Nazim at the relevant time. He added that the land measuring 140 Kanals was originally owned by Haji Ch. Lai Din, the deceased father of respondent No,5 and after his death the same was devolved upon his legal heirs. It is denied that the land was ever earmarked for the purpose of park and submitted that the land is still in possession of the legal heirs of late Haji Ch. Lai Din. The acquisition of the land is under challenge and the suit has been decreed vide judgment dated 24-11-1996 in favour of legal heirs of the deceased Haji Lai Din. The decree has been challenged by respondents No,3/LDA by filing an appeal.
4. Respondent No,4 in its reply and parawise comments has asserted that the land has not been handed over to it for the purpose of development of a park. Respondent No,4/PHA cannot by itself convert a premises into a park unless formal possession is delivered by respondent No,3.
Respondent No,3 has denied that there is any proposal for conversion of the premises of park for any other use.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The land claimed to be reserved for park is a private land, the acquisition whereof has been challenged by respondent No, 5 and a decree of a Court of competent jurisdiction in favour of respondent No,5 has been passed, The appeal against the decree is pending in the Court of Mr. Sultan Ahmad, Additional District Judge, Lahore. No park can be developed at a disputed place unless the controversy is resolved. The matter is pending before a Court of competent jurisdiction.
Respondent No, 5 has levelled serious allegation against the petitioner and has submitted that act of filing of the instant petition is sheer blackmailing. No direction can be issued to respondent unless the litigation between respondents Nos.3 and 5 is concluded.
6. This petition is devoid of any force and is dismissed.