1994 PLP 1999 (SCMR)

(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22‑9‑1993 in Writ Petition No. 186/R of 1993). ‑‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑‑Petitioner's Constitutional petition was dismissed by High Court on the ground that he being not a party in lower forums had no locus standi to file Constitutional petition‑‑‑Reasons given by High Court for not entertaining Constitutional petition were unassailable‑‑‑Petitioner was also not aggrieved by the order of forums below‑‑‑Petitioner having no locus standi, his Constitutional petition was rightly dismissed by High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th December, 1993. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J: ‑‑The respondents were refugees from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. They were allotted 560 Kanals and 6 Marlas of land against their verified claims. Their allotments were subsequently cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner on the grounds that a notification under the Punjab Land Preservation (CHOS) Act, 1900, had been issued with respect to the land. The order of the Deputy Commissioner was upheld by the Additional Commissioner. However, the Board of Revenue set aside the orders of Deputy Commissioner and Additional Commissioner and restored the allotments of the respondents. The petitioner who was also complainant filed a Constitution petition in the High Court to call in question the order of the Board of Revenue. It was dismissed in limine with the following observations: "Admittedly the petitioner was not party in the litigation and inquiry against respondents was made at the instance of others and mutations were cancelled which were finally restored by order dated 24‑12‑1992. No illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel that respondents were not entitled to the allotment of land in their names. Whatever may be the position, the petitioner was not party in the litigation and has no locus standi to maintain this petition against order dated 24‑12‑1992." The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.

2. The reasons given by the High Court for not entertaining the Constitution petition of the petitioners seem unassailable. If any one could have been aggrieved by the order of, the Board of Revenue it was the Forest Department. The petitioner did not come into picture at all. The High Court was, therefore, justified in holding that he had no locus standi. Leave is refused. A.A./B‑232/S Leave refused.