where the Appellant presented evidence that (a) he stored manuscripts in a safe at 1139 Butler Street (b) the police emptied the safe while executing a search warrant and (c) the police departed with a bin containing numerous documents? Appellant’s brief at 5 (footnote omitted). We initially recognize that an appellate court’s review of a trial court’s decision on petition for return of property is limited to examining whether findings of fact made by the trial court are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed error of law. Commonwealth v. Wintel, Inc., 829 A.2d 753 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003). Regarding the manuscripts, we agree with the Commonwealth that Appellant’s claim is moot. See Commonwealth v. Matsinger, 68 A.3d 390 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2013) (<HOLDING>). Here, questions pertaining to whether
holding that property of a public entity includes having exclusive control and possession of  property holding petition for writ of mandate seeking return of property does not toll the statute of limitations holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property holding where the commonwealth is not in possession of property in question petition for return of property is moot holding that property owner still has relief in the form of the return of his property though condemnation was complete and a highway was constructed across the property