# Arvind Kumar Singh v. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lko. Division Lucknow & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 131
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2018-02-08
- **Case number:** Misc Single No. 1787 of 2018
- **Bench:** Rakesh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arvind-kumar-singh-v-additional-commissioner-judicial-lko-division-lucknow-ors-44346
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.S.C., Yogendra Nath Yadav

Civil
Suit
was
filed
seeking
cancellation of sale deed and said suit
was
decreed
in
favour
of
the
Respondent-Respondent also moved an
appeal against order declaring transfer
void-appeal allowed -Petitioner was
not a party to lis nor appeal-no legal
right of Petitioner infringed-he heave
no locus to file Writ.

Writ Petition dismissed. ( E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

10 All. Arvind Kumar Singh Vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lko. Division Lucknow & Ors.
131
Kushinagar, are hereby set aside and
reversed. The bail application made on
behalf of the revisionist stands allowed.

16.

Let
the
revisionist,
Khushabuddin Ali, through his natural
guardian/
father,
Diladar
Husain,
be
released on bail in Case Crime no.315 of
2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506
IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act,
Police Station Kotwali Padrauna, District
Kushinagar upon his father furnishing a
personal bond with two solvent sureties of
his relatives each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board,
Kushinagar at Padrauna, subject to the
following conditions:

(i) that the natural guardian/
father, Diladar Husain will furnish an
undertaking that upon release on bail the
juvenile will not be permitted to come into
contact or association with any known
criminal or allowed to be exposed to any
moral, physical or psychological danger
and further that the father will ensure that
the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

(ii) The revisionist and his father,
Diladar Husain will report to the District
Probation Officer on the second Monday of
every calendar month commencing with the
second Monday of October, 2020 and if
during any calendar month the second
Monday falls on a holiday, then on the
following working day.

(iii)
The
District
Probation
Officer will keep strict vigil on the
activities of the revisionist and regularly
draw up his social investigation report that
would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice
Board, Kushinagar at Padrauna on such
periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice
Board may determine.

(iv) The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad.

(v) The computer generated copy
of such order shall be self attested by the
counsel of the party concerned.

(vi)
The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.
----------
(2020)10ILR A131
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.02.2018

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Misc Single No. 1787 of 2018

Arvind Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lko.
Division Lucknow & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pankaj Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Yogendra Nath Yadav

Civil
Suit
was
filed
seeking
cancellation of sale deed and said suit
was
decreed
in
favour
of
the
Respondent-Respondent also moved an
appeal against order declaring transfer
void-appeal allowed -Petitioner was
not a party to lis nor appeal-no legal
right of Petitioner infringed-he heave
no locus to file Writ.

Writ Petition dismissed. ( E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs Roshan Kumar,
Haji Bashir Ahmed, (1976) 1 SCC 671
132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs Collector, (2012) 4
SCC 407

3. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs St. of Mah.,
(2013) 4 SCC 465

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava, J.)

1. This petition has been filed challenging
the order dated 01.08.2016 passed by the
Additional Commissioner (respondent no. 1
herein) in Appeal No. C-20151000001139
(Bitto v. Sub Divisional Officer and others).

2. The circumstances giving rise to this
writ petition are as follows:

3. One Shiv Rani, was the recorded tenure
holder of the land in Gata Nos. 547/0.202,
548/0.101, 550Ka/0.074, 552/0.018, 579/0.030,
580/.555 and 584/0.051 total 7 plots measuring
0.808 hectare situated in village Muspipri,
Tehsil Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow
("disputed land"). On 10.01.2008, Shiv Rani
allegedly executed a registered sale deed with
respect to the disputed land in favour of Anil
Kumar. On the same day she also executed a
registered will in favour of her daughter Bitto,
the respondent no. 4 herein.

4. On the strength of the sale deed dated
10.01.2008, Anil Kumar moved an application
for mutation of his name in the revenue records.
The petitioner, it is alleged, opposed the
mutation on the ground that sale deed was void
as the disputed land was sold by Shiv Rani
without prior permission of the Collector in
terms of Section 157-A of the Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act,
1950 (for short ''the Act'). The application for
mutation of Anil Kumar was rejected by the
Tehsildar.

5. On the basis of a report submitted by
the Naib Tehsildar, proceedings were initiated
against Shiv Rani and Anil Kumar under
sections 166 and 167 of the Act. The case was
registered as Case No. 45/52/69/12-13 (State v.
Shiv Rani and others). In the said case, the Subdivisional Officer (respondent no. 2 herein),
vide his order dated 20.02.2013, held that Shiv
Rani belonged to a Scheduled Caste while Anil
Kumar was of general category and as such,
prior approval of the Collector under Section
157-A of the Act was necessary for selling the
disputed land. Since the sale deed dated
10.01.2008 was executed without obtaining
approval of the Collector, the transfer was void
under Section 166 and the land in dispute
vested in the State Government under Section
167 of the Act. The application moved by Anil
Kumar for recall of the order dated 20.02.2013
was also dismissed.

6. In the meantime, on 16.04.2012,
the respondent no. 4 filed a Civil Suit No.
408 of 2012, in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.
Div.),
Hawali,
Lucknow
seeking
cancellation of sale deed dated 10.01.2008
submitting, inter alia, that Shiv Rani had
died much before 10.01.2008, the date of
the alleged sale deed; that the said deed
was a sham document which was obtained
by Anil Kumar by setting up an imposter in
place of the owner, Shiv Rani. The said suit
was decreed in favour of respondent no. 4
on 11.09.2013.

7. After the judgment and decree
dated 11.09.2013 was passed by the Civil
Judge, Hawali, the respondent no. 4, on
06.05.2015, filed an appeal before the
Additional Commissioner under Section
333 of the Act against orders dated
20.02.2013 and 23.08.2014 passed by the
Sub-divisional Officer. By order dated
01.08.2016 the appeal preferred by the
respondent no. 4 has been allowed and the
orders dated 20.02.2013 and 23.08.2014
have been set aside. It is only this order
10 All. Arvind Kumar Singh Vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lko. Division Lucknow & Ors.
133
which is under challenge in the present writ
petition. The judgment and decree dated
11.09.2013 has not been assailed by the
petitioner.

8. Heard Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned
counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for respondent
nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Yogendra Nath
Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.
3.

9. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a
party to the lis. The question is as to
whether the petitioner has the locus to
invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India in this case.

10. It is well settled that in order to
have the locus standi to invoke certiorari
jurisdiction, the petitioner should be an
"aggrieved person". If the petitioner does
not fall in this category, and is a "stranger",
the Court will deny him this extraordinary
remedy, save in very special circumstances
wherein it may exercise its discretion in
favour of the petitioner.

11. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v.
Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed, (1976)
1 SCC 671, the Apex Court considered the
question as to who can be considered as a
"person aggrieved" in order to have the
locus to invoke certiorari jurisdiction of a
writ court and held as under:

"37. It will be seen that in the
context of locus standi to apply for a writ of
certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall
in any of these categories: (i) "person
aggrieved"; (ii) "stranger"; (iii) busybody
or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the
last category are easily distinguishable
from those coming under the first two
categories. Such persons interfere in things
which
do
not
concern
them.
They
masquerade as crusaders for justice. They
pretend to act in the name of pro bono
publico, though they have no interest of the
public or even of their own to protect. They
indulge in the pastime of meddling with the
judicial process either by force of habit or
from improper motives. Often, they are
actuated by a desire to win notoriety or
cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent
of some applicants in this category, may be
no more than spoking the wheels of
administration. The High Court should do
well to reject the applications of such
busybodies at the threshold.

38. The distinction between the
first and second categories of applicants,
though real, is not always well-demarcated.
The first category has, as it were, two
concentric zones; a solid central zone of
certainty, and a grey outer circle of
lessening certainty in a sliding centrifugal
scale, with an outermost nebulous fringe of
uncertainty. Applicants falling within the
central zone are those whose legal rights
have been infringed. Such applicants
undoubtedly stand in the category of
"persons aggrieved". In the grey outer
circle the bounds which separate the first
category
from
the
second,
intermix,
interfuse and overlap increasingly in a
centrifugal direction. All persons in this
outer zone may not be "persons aggrieved".

39. To distinguish such applicants
from "strangers", among them, some broad
tests may be deduced from the conspectus
made above. These tests are not absolute
and
ultimate.
Their
efficacy
varies
according to the circumstances of the case,
including the statutory context in which the
matter falls to be considered. These are:
Whether the applicant is a person whose
134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
legal right has been infringed? Has he
suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the
sense, that his interest, recognised by law,
has been prejudicially and directly affected
by the act or omission of the authority,
complained of? Is he a person who has
suffered a legal grievance, a person

"against whom a decision has
been pronounced which has wrongfully
deprived him of something or wrongfully
refused him something, or wrongfully
affected his title to something?"

Has he a special and substantial
grievance of his own beyond some
grievance or inconvenience suffered by him
in common with the rest of the public? Was
he entitled to object and be heard by the
authority before it took the impugned
action? If so, was he prejudicially affected
in the exercise of that right by the act of
usurpation of jurisdiction on the part of the
authority? Is the statute, in the context of
which the scope of the words "person
aggrieved" is being considered, a social
welfare measure designed to lay down
ethical or professional standards of conduct
for the community? Or is it a statute
dealing with private rights of particular
individuals?

*
 *
 *

49. It is true that in the ultimate
analysis, the jurisdiction under Article 226
in general, and certiorari in particular is
discretionary. But in a country like India
where writ petitions are instituted in the
High Courts by the thousand, many of them
frivolous, a strict ascertainment, at the
outset, of the standing of the petitioner to
invoke this extraordinary jurisdiction, must
be insisted upon. The broad guidelines
indicated by us, coupled with other wellestablished self-devised rules of practice,
such as the availability of an alternative
remedy, the conduct of the petitioner etc.
can go a long way to help the courts in
weeding out a large number of writ
petitions
at
the
initial
stage
with
consequent saving of public time and
money."(emphasis supplied)

12. In paragraph 19 of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has stated his cause
of action as follows:

"That the land in question is a
very valuable land of gram sabha and as
gram sabha is not coming forward hence
present petitioner (sic petition) is being
filed through resident of village to save
property of gram sabha."

13. As is evident from the facts
narrated above, no legal right of the
petitioner has been infringed. He is at the
most a complainant.

14. In Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v.
Collector, (2012) 4 SCC 407, the Apex
Court has held that a complainant cannot
claim the status of an adversarial litigant
and become a party to the lis in the
following words:

"58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath
Gharat, ex-President was the complainant,
thus, at the most, he could lead evidence as
a witness. He could not claim the status of
an adversarial litigant. The complainant
cannot be the party to the lis. A legal right
is an averment of entitlement arising out of
law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a
person by the rule of law. Thus, a person
who suffers from legal injury can only
challenge the act or omission. There may
be some harm or loss that may not be
wrongful in the eye of the law because it
may not result in injury to a legal right or
legally
protected
interest
of
the
complainant but juridically harm of this
description is called damnum sine injuria.
10 All. C/M Babu Triloki Singh Inter College Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
135

59. The complainant has to
establish that he has been deprived of or
denied of a legal right and he has sustained
injury to any legally protected interest. In
case he has no legal peg for a justiciable
claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a
party in a lis. A fanciful or sentimental
grievance may not be sufficient to confer a
locus standi to sue upon the individual.
There must be injuria or a legal grievance
which can be appreciated and not a stat pro
ratione voluntas reasons i.e. a claim devoid
of reasons.

60. Under the garb of being a
necessary party, a person cannot be
permitted to make a case as that of general
public interest. A person having a remote
interest cannot be permitted to become a
party in the lis, as the person who wants to
become a party in a case, has to establish
that he has a proprietary right which has
been or is threatened to be violated, for the
reason that a legal injury creates a
remedial right in the injured person. A
person cannot be heard as a party unless
he answers the description of aggrieved
party."(emphasis supplied)

15. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan
v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465,
the Apex Court has enumerated some of the
exceptional circumstances wherein a third
person, having no concern with the case,
can be heard. Paragraph 23 of the said
report being relevant is extracted below:

"23. Thus, from the above it is
evident that under ordinary circumstances,
a third person, having no concern with the
case at hand, cannot claim to have any
locus standi to raise any grievance
whatsoever.
However,
in
exceptional
circumstances as referred to above, if the
actual persons aggrieved, because of
ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or
poverty, are unable to approach the court,
and a person, who has no personal agenda,
or object, in relation to which, he can grind
his own axe, approaches the court, then the
court may examine the issue and in
exceptional circumstances, even if his bona
fides are doubted, but the issue raised by
him, in the opinion of the court, requires
consideration, the court may proceed suo
motu, in such respect."(emphasis supplied)

16. The petitioner is admittedly
espousing the cause of Gaon Sabha. By no
stretch of imagination, can it be said that
the Gaon Sabha is unable to approach this
Court
because
of
the
exceptional
circumstances mentioned in the case of
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra).

17. For the foregoing reasons, the
petitioner has no locus to invoke the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, without entering into the
merits of the case, this writ petition is
dismissed. No order as to cost.
----------
(2020)10ILR A135
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.08.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Misc Single No. 13987 of 2020

C/M Babu Triloki Singh Inter College
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Som Kartik Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.