' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Instant constitutional petition was filed to restrain the respondents from demolishing or occupying petitioner's property and to restore status quo ante, as it existed on 13-4-1998.
2. Petitioner claimed that he was allotted land measuring 8 kanals known as 2-C, Gulberg-II, Lahore, by the Secretary Lahore Improvement Trust vide his Letter No. 14834, dated 19-2-1952 and on the basis thereof, registered sale-deed was executed on 13-12-1995. Another part of land measuring 150 x 22.5 = 3375 Sq. Ft. (15 marlas) was allotted to the petitioner on closure of "Ichhra Distributory" in theyear, .1970 flowing from main canal leading through Blocks C and D of Gulberg Scheme. The allotment was made on 8-9-1971 by the Lahore Improvement Trust and on the basis thereof registered sale-deed was executed on 7-1-1980 by the Lahore Development Authority.
3. It so happened that on 10-5-1980 a squad of Lahore Municipal Corporation Staff, headed by LMC Magistrate demolished petitioner's boundary wall and utilized 15 marlas of land transferred to the petitioner by LDA vide sale-deed, dated 7-1-1980 for expansion of road. Petitioner claimed that he was not served any notice and utilization of his land, without resort to acquisition proceedings or purchase by private negotiations, was contrary to law, especially when no compensation to him was paid by the respondents. Petitioners consequently filed instant constitutional petition, with the relief noted above and this Court on 15-4-1998 restrained the respondents from demolishing the constructions or interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the property.
4. Respondents in response to notice by this Court, besides appearing through their respective counsel, filed their distinct replies. Stance of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 was that land beneath "Ichhra Distributory" on its closure vested in Provincial Government and LDA was not competent to allot or sell the Nazul State land to the unauthorized occupants, in any manner. Order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 11-4-1998, resuming possession of the Nazul land in favour of the State and proceedings in this behalf conducted by Assistant Commissioner, Model Town, Lahore, were relied to negate petitioner's ownership.
' LDA supported the case of the petitioner and took up the stance in its report/parawise comments that LIT (Lahore Improvement Trust) passed Resolution No.10, dated 28-8-1970 to the effect that abandoned area of 12 kanals, 3 marlas 164 Sq. Ft. Of "Rajbah" be sold to the owners of the adjoining plots and thus land measuring 15 marlas was given to the petitioner by LIT against payment of Rs,22,500, as entered in the sale-deed in his favour. LDA denied that any of its officials participated in the claimed demolition of the boundary wall, constructed by the petitioner.
5. Having heard the case and perused the record, it became apparent that stance canvassed in this petition rested on disputed factual controversy, requiring determination through detailed inquiry/recording of evidence but such exercise cannot be undertaken while discharging jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of this country. These canons have already attained finality through consistent judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, right from the case of The Province of East Pakistan v. Kshiti Dhar Roy and others (PLD 1964 SC636) up-to date, including the case of Muhammad Younas Khan and 12 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others (1993 SCM R 618). Besides this constitutional handicap, petitioner's own case in the main constitutional petition, as well as, in C.M. 3/1998 was that respondents have already demolished his rear boundary wall and have encroached upon his land measuring 15 marlas for construction of the road. Petitioner admitted that his 15 marlas land has been utilized for construction of road, already complete and be prayed construction of boundary wall on the rear side of his house, which was exposed on account of complained activity.
In this behalf, petitioner was only left with the option of claiming compensation of the land utilized for construction of road by MCL but no such prayer has been made in the petition under consideration. Petitioner's this right will also require determination as to whether transfer of 15 marlas of land by LIT in his favour through sale-deed, dated 7-1-1980, was lawful or the land becoming available on closure of "Ichhra Distributory", reverted to Provincial Government being Nazul/State land and this determination is not permissible while deciding constitutional petition. As far as cause brought by the petitioner before this Court in the year 1998, the same stood vanished on account of construction of road and this fact flows from the record, as noted above, thus this petition has lost its efficacy and deserved no further determination.
6. For the reasons noted above, this petition is dispoed of, leaving the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his rievance of getting compensation of the land utilized for construction of road, where it will be determined that who, out of the respondents, is liable to pay compensation.
There will be nor order as to costs.