' Petitioners through this Constitutional petition have assailed Notification, dated 4th of February, 1989 whereby respondent No,1 Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, in exercise of his powers under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, read with West Patistan Union Council Shamlat Rules, 1983 allowed the construction of shops and children part on Khasra No,1794 to the Town Committee, Alipur Chattha.
2. The facts briefly, according to the writ petition, are that the petitioner No,1 moved an application under Scheme-VIII and Scheme-IX for the transfer of evacuee plot measuring 10 Kanals *comprising Khasra No,1794 in his possession. On the other side Riaz Hussain (deceased) predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.2 to 7 filed a civil suit at Wazirabad against petitioner No,1 claiming the disputed land as Shamlat on the ground of being owner in the revenue estate. It is the case of the petitioners that a compromise was effected on 26-7-1983 between the petitioner No,1 on the one side and Riaz Hussain, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.2 to 7 on the other side and accordingly the disputed plot was divided in equal shares between them.
3. Grievance has been made that the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, through the impugned Notification dated 4-2-1989 has illegally transferred the management and maintenance of the disputed land to the respondent No,2, Town Committee, Alipur, for the construction of shops and children park.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at the limine stage and have perused the comments submitted by respondent No,2. Apparently the petitioners through a collusive suit divided the alleged plot in equal shares. Petitioner No,1's stance is also not consistent as it is evident from the report. He filed a civil suit claiming the disputed land on the basis of Shamilat. In the writ petition a somersault has been taken and the property in dispute has been described as an evacuee property. The possession of the petitioners has categorically been denied by respondent No,2. Resultantly, the matter being disputed question of fact, I am not inclined to persuade to interfere in my Constitutional jurisdiction and dismiss this writ petition in limine.