1. FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.--This petition for leave is directed against a judgment dated 24-9- 1975 of the Lahore High Court, dismissing the petitioners' writ petition on the ground that they had no locus standi to challenge the allotment of land made in favour of respondent Ghulam Muhammad in the year 1963. The petitioners had claimed locus standi to dispute the transfer in favour of the said respondent on the ground that the land had earlier been allotted to them under the Rehabilitation Guzara Scheme.
2. At the hearing of the writ petition, the petitioners sought time to place on record the relevant documents showing their interest in the land, which request was granted by the High Court vide its order dated 5-7-1975 conditionally on payment of Rs.250, as costs. The petitioners neither paid the costs, nor did they file any document showing their interest in the land in dispute. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the petition observing that:- "There is no document supplied by .The petitioners so as to show that the land was ever proposed in their names. There is also no document in support of their contention that they were in possession as temporary allottees of the land in dispute and that the allotment made in favour of the respondent was in violation of their right in any manner. From the perusal of the orders placed on record, it transpires that Ghulam Muhammad respondent No. 4 had taken the allotment independently and in spite of the fact that the petitioners made a revision against his allotment, no indication was shown that they had a preference over the rights of the respondent. The petitioners have, therefore, failed to show that they had a locus standi to make a revision against respondent No. 4. There is no material on record to show that the different orders passed by the Settlement Authorities were in any way without jurisdiction or passed without lawful authority."
3. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a Parch--i Taqseem which is said to show their interest in the land in dispute, but this document was not produced before the High Court in spite of opportunity given to them. The petitioners also failed to deposit the costs, referred to above. In the circumstances, we are not persuaded to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.
4. The leave petition is accordingly dismissed.