ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, J.---Through the instant petition the petitioner is seeking restraining order against Pakistan Railways from disturbing the peaceful lawful possession and title of property viz. City Survey No.2186 (4175-0 Sqr. Ft) Ward "G" City Hyderabad being private property of the petitioner , with further assertion that lease deed prepared by Pakistan Railways in this regard may be declared as false and fabricated document having. no effect upon the private property of petitioner .
2. Mr. Zahoor Ahmed Baloch, learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the Petitioner is owner of a piece of land viz City Survey No.2186 (4175-0 Sq. Ft) Ward "G" City Hyderabad, which was initially in possession of father of petitioner and Sardar Yaar Khan, thereafter petitioner inherited the above property on 12.08.2014; that the petitioner and other co-sharers are in possession of the above mentioned property; that all of sudden on 04.05.2015 Respondent-Pakistan Railways put the aforesaid land for Auction for marriage Hall; that the petitioner rushed to the respondents and produced his documentary evidence of the subje ct property , but no satisfactory reply was given by them; that the respondents are misusing their official positions and intend to dispossess the petitioner from the, lawful possession of aforesaid property in connivance with police. Learned counsel in support of his contentions has relied upon the document i.e. Ward Extract from the Property Register Card dated 07.11.2009 and argued that the petitioner is owner of the subject property .
3. Conversely , learned counsel for Pakistan Railways has disputed the claim of the petitioner and has argued that the petitioner is fraudulent person who on the basis of false and fabricated documents claiming the ownership of the subject land which belongs to Pakistan Railways thus has caused financial loss to the national exchequer; that the subject Property was leased out to Messrs Caltex Oil Company for storage of oil in the year 1953 learned counsel in support of his contentions has relied upon the copy of agreement, site plan and revenue record attached with the para-wise comments and argued that suit property does not fall within the jurisdiction of city survey which has been confirmed by the City. Supervisor , this shows that documents produced by the petitioner are false and fabricated one; that petitioner's claim is based on forged/fabricated documents to achieve his ill motive to grab the state land worth millions of rupees; that suit property remained in the possession of Pakistan Railways since its vacation by Messrs Caltex, the vacation certificate dated 30.06.2017 is attached with comments; that suit property is in possession of Pakistan Railways, therefore, the question of dispossessing the petitioner does not arise. He lastly prayed that the false documents produced by the petitioner in the present petition an appropriate action order may be taken against the petitioner and the instant petition may be dismissed.
4. During the course of arguments, we asked from the learned counsel for the Petitioner to satisfy this Court regarding maintainability of the captioned petition on the premise that there is no allotment order , regarding subject property , in favour of the Petitioner to claim his entitlement under the law. In reply to the query , he submitted that his only grievance is that the Petitioner may not be evicted from the subject premises, which is in his lawful possession, being private property of the petitioner .
5. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
6. In view of the stance taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the issue involved in the, present proceedings, we are of considered opinion that the subject petition is not maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, for the simple reason that Petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim of ownership on the subject premises, record does not reflect that the respondent-Pakistan Railways has executed any allotment order in favour of the petitioner . Prima facie the petitioner has no title document to show B that he is owner of the subject property i.e. City Survey No.2186 (4175-0 Sq. Ft) Ward "G"
City Hyderabad.
7. We are of the view that mere possession of the subject premises cannot confer ownership rights to the petitioner of the property in question to claim protection of Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution.
8. Without touching the merits of the case, we are of the view that the Petitioner has remedy to approach the civil court for grant of such relief, and this court cannot dilate upon the disputed claims and counter claims on the basis of documents of the subject property in constitutional jurisdiction. This being a position of the case, we are not inclined to entertain this matter any further . This petition is misconceived, which is dismissed along with listed applications(s).