1. ' SAAR SAOOD JAN, J.---The respondents were refugees from the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
2. 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.
3. 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."
4. ' 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 anyone 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.