JUDGMENT 1. The land in question was ordered to be resumed by the Collector in favour of the State. The said order has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that they are in possession of the land. They claimed the possession through the Original tenants in whose name the land stood in the record. It was their case that the tenants had entered into agreement for sale of land and as per the said agreement, possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner but the said contention of the petitioners was denied by them and they have come up with the specific averment that no such agreement was entered with the petitioners. 2. Second submission was that no notice was given to the petitioner for initiating action under Section 13 of the Colonisation Act. The Board of Revenue has held that the petitioners had no locus standi in the proceedings as they could not be said to be purchaser of the land and they have no right or title to the land in question. It has been further held that if at all anybody is affected, they were the original tenants and not the present petitioners on the resumption of the land. 3. I am in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the Board of Revenue that the petitioners had no locus standi as they had not acquired the right or title to the land. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******