MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J .‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court. It has arisen out of an allotment/lease of Government owned land.

2. The contest between the petitioner and respondent No.2 came decided before an Additional commissioner who rejected the to be decided claim of both the sides. Respondent No.2 then filed a revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue, which was allowed. The petitioner then challenged the order of the Member, Board of Revenue before the High Court through a writ petition which having been dismissed, leave to appeal has now been sought.

3. The High Court took the view that the petitioner not having challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner before the Member, Board of Revenue, could not have filed directly a writ petition in the High Court so as to keep his grievance alive after the decision of the Additional Commissioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it was the duty of the respondent No.2 to implead the petitioner as a respondent in the revision before the Member, Board of Revenue. We do not agree with him.

5. The petitioner in reality lost his case before the Additional Commissioner. It was, therefore, necessary for him to agitate his grievance before the Member, Board of Revenue. He having accepted the order of the Additional Commissioner, lost his locus standi to file a writ petition in the High Court. The same having rightly been dismissed, leave to appeal is refused.

6. M.I. /M‑525/S Petition dismissed.