BHULLA vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 7 others
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal in limine of a Constitution petition by the High Court. The respondents, refugees from Jammu and Kashmir, were allotted land against verified claims, which allotments were initially cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner due to a notification under the Punjab Land Preservation (CHOS) Act, 1900, but subsequently restored by the Board of Revenue. The petitioner, a complainant who was not a party to the original proceedings, challenged the Board of Revenue's order in the High Court. The core legal question concerns the locus standi of a third-party complainant to challenge land allotment restorations when no personal legal right is infringed and the relevant department has raised no grievance. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in dismissing the petition, ruling that the petitioner lacked locus standi as he was not a party to the litigation and not personally aggrieved, noting that any grievance would properly rest with the Forest Department. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
- Does a third-party complainant have locus standi to challenge the restoration of land allotments to refugees?
- Whether a Constitution petition against a revenue order can be maintained by a person who was not a party to the underlying litigation?
- Can a petitioner maintain a constitutional challenge where the aggrieved party, if any, is a government department that has not contested the order?
- Punjab Land Preservation (CHOS) Act, 1900
ORDER
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.