# Ghanshyam Verma & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors. 630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 629
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-06-30
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 13312 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ghanshyam-verma-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-630-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-47240
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. U.P. Revenue Code (2006) - Section 67-
wrongful occupation of Gram Panchayat
property - Appeal u/s Section 67(5) -
Locus - Issue - whether appeal filed
against the order of Assistant Collector
u/s 67(4), is maintainable at the instance
of a person, if he is not a party in the
proceedings, but is aggrieved ? - 'any
person' aggrieved vis-à-vis 'any party'
aggrieved
-
Held
-
S.
67(5)
uses
expression, 'any person' aggrieved, and
not 'any party' aggrieved - any 'person'
may be the 'party' or may not be a party
can maintain an appeal if he is aggrieved
from the order of the Assistant Collector -
Sub section (5), also includes a non-party
to the proceedings if he can show that he
is a 'person aggrieved' from the order
passed under sub section (3) or sub
section (4) (Para 14)

B. U.P. Revenue Code (2006) - wrongful
occupation of Gram Panchayat property -
Appeal u/s S.67(5) - Locus - any 'person
aggrieved'
-
Held
-
petitioners
being
members of the Gaon Sabha & the land
being 'Naveen Parti' vested in Gaon Sabha,
which have been encroached upon would be
'person aggrieved' from the order of the
Assistant Collector by which the notice
issued to the alleged encroacher has been
withdrawn as by encroachment of Gaon
Sabha land the benefits which the members
of the Gaon Sabha may be legally entitled to
receive,
would
be
deprived
of
that
entitlement (Para 20)

Allowed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Ghanshyam Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
629

45. Relying on the judgment of
Hon'ble the Apex Court State of West
Bengal & Ors. Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha &
Ors.10, and some other cases, the power of
quashing the criminal proceedings has to be
exercised
very
sparingly
and
with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of
rare cases and the Court cannot be justified
in embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of
allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint
and the extraordinary and inherent powers
of Court do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the Court to act according to
its whims or caprice. However, the Court,
under its inherent powers, can neither
intervene at an uncalled for stage nor it can
''soft-pedal the course of justice' at a crucial
stage of investigation/ proceedings.

46. The case of prosecution is that
being in an organized gang as member of
the gang, the petitioner is found indulged in
offences of serious nature to make
economical, material and unlawful gain,
there is no rebuttal of this report made by
the petitioner in his affidavit by pleading,
what he does for his livelihood and/or to
feed 'belly of his family'.

47. So far as the personal liberty of
the accused is concerned, it is not valid in
violation or in breach of fundamental right
of the other people living under the threat
and fear of his gang. Hon'ble the Supreme
Court further in the case of Sudha Singh
Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.11
held as follows:-

"12. There is no doubt that liberty
is important, even that of a person charged
with crime but it is important for the courts
to recognise the potential threat to the life
and liberty of victims/witnesses, if such
accused is released on bail."

48. After having examined the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the impugned
F.I.R., we are of the opinion that the
impugned
F.I.R.
discloses
cognizable
offence against the petitioner, hence no
ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or
staying the arrest of the petitioner.
49. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.

50. The party shall file computer
generated copy of order downloaded from
the
official
website
of
High
Court
Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a
self attested identity proof of the said
person(s)
(preferably
Aadhar
Card)
mentioning the mobile number(s) to which
the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the
concerned Court/Authority/Official.

51.

The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of the computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.
----------
(2021)07ILR A629
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Misc. Single No. 13312 of 2021

Ghanshyam Verma & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Subodh Kumar Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mohan Singh

A. U.P. Revenue Code (2006) - Section 67-
wrongful occupation of Gram Panchayat
property - Appeal u/s Section 67(5) -
Locus - Issue - whether appeal filed
against the order of Assistant Collector
u/s 67(4), is maintainable at the instance
of a person, if he is not a party in the
proceedings, but is aggrieved ? - 'any
person' aggrieved vis-à-vis 'any party'
aggrieved
-
Held
-
S.
67(5)
uses
expression, 'any person' aggrieved, and
not 'any party' aggrieved - any 'person'
may be the 'party' or may not be a party
can maintain an appeal if he is aggrieved
from the order of the Assistant Collector -
Sub section (5), also includes a non-party
to the proceedings if he can show that he
is a 'person aggrieved' from the order
passed under sub section (3) or sub
section (4) (Para 14)

B. U.P. Revenue Code (2006) - wrongful
occupation of Gram Panchayat property -
Appeal u/s S.67(5) - Locus - any 'person
aggrieved'
-
Held
-
petitioners
being
members of the Gaon Sabha & the land
being 'Naveen Parti' vested in Gaon Sabha,
which have been encroached upon would be
'person aggrieved' from the order of the
Assistant Collector by which the notice
issued to the alleged encroacher has been
withdrawn as by encroachment of Gaon
Sabha land the benefits which the members
of the Gaon Sabha may be legally entitled to
receive,
would
be
deprived
of
that
entitlement (Para 20)

Allowed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited:

1. Gram Sabha Gooma Fatima Jot Vs DDC
Balrampur & ors. 2020 (146) R.D. 512 (H.C.)

2. Om Prakash Verma Vs St. of U.P. 2014(5)
ADJ 427
3. Dharmraj Vs St.of U.P. & ors. 2009 (27)
L.C.D. 1373

4. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs Roshan Kumar,
Haji Bashir Ahmed & ors. AIR 1976 SC 578

5. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs St. of Maha
(2013) 4 SCC 465

6. Delhi Development Authority (2015) 14 SCC
254

7. Peer Mohammad Vs St. of U.P. & ors. W.P.
No. 13397 (MB) of 2020 dt 28.08.2020

8. Gram Sabha Komna Balrampur Vs DDC
Balrampur 2020 R.D. 512

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard Shri Subodh Kumar Verma,
the learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr.
Krishna Singh, the learned Standing
Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1, 2
and 3 and Shri Mohan Singh, the learned
counsel appearing for the opposite party
No. 4-Gaon Sabha/ Gram Panchayat,
Dadwa, Imliya Yarki, Akbarpur, District
Ambedkar
Nagar,
through
video
conferencing.

2. For the order proposed to be
passed, issuance of notice to the private
opposite party No. 5 is hereby dispensed
with, but his interest would be secured.

3. This writ petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 04.11.2019
passed by the Assistant Collector-First
Class/ Tehsildar, Akbarpur, Ambedkar
Nagar, by which the notice/ R.C. Form-20,
issued to the opposite party No. 5 in the
proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, has been withdrawn.
Against the said order the petitioners filed
an appeal which has also been dismissed by
the
District
Magistrate/Collector,
7 All. Ghanshyam Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
631
Ambedkar Nagar by the order dated
27.01.2021 as not maintainable, which is
also under challenge.

4. The dispute pertains to an area of
04 Biswa/ 0.051 hectare of Gata No. 2123,
situated at Village Yarki Dadwa, Post Yarki,
Pargana/
Tehsil
Akbarpur,
District
Ambedkar Nagar, said to be the Gaon
Sabha land recorded as Naveen Parti, and
allegedly occupied illegally by the opposite
party No. 5.

5.

Some
of
the
petitioners,
previously, filed Petition No. 35328 (MS)
of 2018, Shakuntala Verma & Others Vs.
State of U.P. and others, for a direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
opposite parties No. 1 to 5 therein to get
the land in dispute vacated from illegal
occupation of the private opposite parties.
In the said petition the learned Standing
Counsel informed the Court that the
appropriate proceedings under Section
67(1) of U.P. Revenue Code had been
initiated against the encroachers and
consequently the petition was disposed of
with the observations and directions that
the proceedings so initiated for removal of
illegal encroachment shall be finalized in
accordance with law giving opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned by the
competent
authority,
expeditiously,
keeping in mind the statutory period
prescribed for disposal of such cases under
the U.P. Revenue Code. Thereafter, by the
order dated 04.11.2019 the notice issued to
the opposite party No. 5 was withdrawn by
the
Assistant
Collector/
Tehsildar,
Akbarpur,
District
Ambedkar
Nagar,
against which the petitioners filed an
appeal, which has been dismissed by the
order dated 27.01.2021.

6. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners'
appeal has been dismissed only on the
ground that the appeal at the instance of the
petitioners was not maintainable, as the
petitioners were not the party in the
proceedings before the Tehsildar/ Assistant
Collector First Class. His submission is that
the land in dispute is Gaon Sabha land and
the petitioners being resident of the same
Gaon Sabha have interest in the land of
Gaon Sabha. In case of encroachment over
Gaon Sabha land the petitioners being
aggrieved from the order of the Tehsildar,
have a right to maintain the appeal,
particularly when Section 67(5) of the
Revenue Code, 2006 provides for the
appeal by the persons aggrieved from the
order passed by the Tehsildar. The order
withdrawing the notice issued to the
opposite party No. 5, who has encroached
upon the Gaon Sabha land causes injury to
the petitioners who are the persons
aggrieved.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the appellate authority in
rejecting the petitioners' appeal, as not
maintainable, has placed reliance on para12 of the Appendix-II of the U.P. Revenue
Code Rules, 2016, and has also placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in
the case of Gram Sabha Gooma Fatima
Jot Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation
Balrampur and others, reported in 2020
(146) R.D. 512 (H.C.), but those provisions
as also the case law are not applicable.

8.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has submitted that Naveen
Parti land is for the benefit of the
members of the Gaon Sabha. Initially
when
the
proceedings
against
the
632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
encroachers were not being initiated by
the Gaon Sabha, the petitioners had
approached this Court and it was only
thereafter, the proceedings were initiated
under Section 67(2) of the U.P. Revenue
Code, but after the order has been passed
against the Gaon Sabha, the Gaon Sabha
has not come forward to file the appeal,
inspite of petitioners' request to file
appeal, whereas, it is the statutory duty of
the Gaon Sabha through its Land
Management Committee to ensure safety
and security of the Gaon Sabha property.

9. Shri Mohan Singh, the learned
counsel appearing for the opposite party
No. 4-Gaon Sabha, has fairly submitted
that Section 67(5) provides for appeal
which can be filed by any 'person
aggrieved' by the order of Tehsildar. The
petitioners, if aggrieved, could maintain
the appeal. He has placed reliance on the
judgments in the cases of Om Prakash
Verma Vs. State of U.P., 2014(5) ADJ
427, and Dharmraj Vs. State of U.P. and
others, reported in 2009 (27) L.C.D.
1373.

10. Dr. Krishna Singh, has also
submitted that from bare reading of Section
67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 it is
evident that any person aggrieved has a
right to prefer an appeal.

11. I have considered the submissions
advanced and also perused the material on
record.

12. The short point for consideration
is whether an appeal filed against the order
of Tehsildar/ Assistant Collector, under
Section 67(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, is maintainable at the instance of a
person if he is not a party in the
proceedings, but is aggrieved.

13. Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 provides as under:

"67. Power to prevent damage,
misappropriation
and
wrongful
occupation of Gram Panchayat property.-
(1) Where any property entrusted or
deemed
to
be
entrusted
under
the
provisions of this Code to a Gram
Panchayat or other local authority is
damaged or misappropriated, or where any
Gram Panchayat or other authority is
entitled to take possession of any land
under the provisions of this Code and such
land is occupied otherwise than in
accordance with the said provisions, the
Bhumi
Prabandhak
Samiti
or
other
authority or the Lekhpal concerned, as the
case may be, shall inform the Assistant
Collector
concerned
in
the
manner
prescribed.

(2) Where from the information
received
under
sub-section
(1)
or
otherwise,
the Assistant
Collector
is
satisfied that any property referred to in
sub-section (1) has been damaged or
misappropriated, or any person is in
occupation of any land referred to in that
sub-section
in
contravention
of
the
provisions of this Code, he shall issue
notice to the person concerned to show
cause why compensation for damage,
misappropriation or wrongful occupation
not exceeding the amount specified in the
notice be not recovered from him annd why
he should not be evicted from such land.

(3) If the person to whom a notice
has been issued under sub-section (2) fails
to show cause within the time specified in
the notice or within such extended time as
the Assistant Collector may allow in this
behalf, or if the cause shown is found to be
insufficient, the Assistant Collector may
direct that such person shall be evicted
from the land, and may, for that purpose,
7 All. Ghanshyam Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
633
use or cause to be used such force as may
be necessary, and may direct that the
amount of compensation for damage or 34
misappropriation of the property or for
wrongful occupation, as the case may be,
be recovered from such person as arrears
of land revenue.

(4) If the Assistant Collector is of
opinion that the person showing cause is
not guilty of causing the damage or
misappropriation or wrongful occupation
referred to in the notice under sub-section
(2), he shall discharge the notice.

(5) Any person aggrieved by an
order of the Assistant Collector under subsection (3) or sub-section (4), may within
thirty days from the date of such order,
prefer an appeal to the Collector.

(6)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any other provision of this
Code, and subject to the provisions of this
section every order of the Assistant
Collector under this section shall, subject
to the provisions of sub-section (5) be final.

(7) The procedure to be followed
in any action taken under this section shall
be such as may be prescribed."

14. It is evident from sub-section (5)
of Section 67 of the Code, 2006 that if any
person is aggrieved by an order of the
Assistant Collector under sub-section (3) or
sub-section (4), he may within thirty days
from the date of the order, prefer an appeal
before
the
Collector. This uses
the
expression, 'any person aggrieved', and not
'any party aggrieved'. A bare reading of
sub-section (5) shows that any 'person' may
be the 'party' or may not be a party can
maintain an appeal if he is aggrieved from
the order of the Assistant Collector under
sub section (3) or sub section (4). Sub
section (5), therefore, is not confined to
party aggrieved from the order passed
under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4)
of Section 67, but also includes a non-party
to the proceedings if he can show that he is
a 'person aggrieved' from the order passed
under sub section (3) or sub section (4).

15. The Court, therefore, proceeds to
address as to who is a 'person aggrieved'
and whether the petitioners in the present
case would be the 'person aggrieved' so as
to maintain the appeal against the order
passed
by
the
Assistant
Collector
discharging the notice under sub section
(4).

16. In the case of Jasbhai Motibhai
Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir
Ahmed and others, AIR 1976 SC 578 the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that a person
aggrieved must be a man who has suffered
a legal grievance, a man 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.
The relevant paragraph Nos. 27, 29, and 33
of the said report are being reproduced as
under:

"27.
In
Bar
Council
of
Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar [1975] 2
SCC 703=(AIR 1975 SC 2092) a Bench of
seven learned Judges of this Court
considered the Question whether the Bar
Council of a State was a 'person aggrieved'
to maintain an appeal under Section of the
Advocates' Act, 1961. Answering the
question in the affirmative , this Court,
speaking through Ray C.J. indicated how
the expression "person aggrieved" is to be
interpreted in the context of a statute, thus:

The meaning of the words "a
person, aggrieved" may vary according to
634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the context of the statute. One of the
meanings is that a person will be held to be
aggrieved by a decision if that decision is
materially adverse to him. Normally, one is
required to establish that one has been
denied or deprived of something to which
one is legally entitled in order to make one
"a person aggrieved". Again a person is
aggrieved if a legal burden is imposed on
him. The meaning of the words "a person
aggrieved" is sometimes given a restricted
meaning in certain statutes which provide
remedies for the protection of private legal
rights. The restricted meaning requires
denial or deprivation of legal rights. A
more liberal approach is required in the
background of statutes which do not deal
with
property
rights
but
deal
with
professional conduct and morality. The role
of the Bar Council under the Advocates' Act
is comparable to the role of a guardian in
professional ethics. The words "person
aggrieved" in Sections 37 and 38 of the Act
are of wide import and should not be
subjected to a restricted interpretation of
possession or denial of legal rights or
burdens or financial interests.

29. Typical of the cases in which
a strict construction was put on the
expression "person aggrieved", is Buxton v.
Minister of Housing and Local Govt. .
There, an appeal by a Company against the
refusal of the Local Planning Authority of
permission to develop land owned by the
Company by digging chalk, was allowed by
the Minister. Owners of adjacent property
applied to the High Court under Section
31(1) of the Town and Country Planning
Act, 1959 to quash the decision of the
Minister on the ground that the proposed
operations by the company would injure
their land and that they were 'persons
aggrieved' by the action of the Minister. It
was held that the expression 'person
aggrieved' in a statute meant a person who
had suffered a legal grievance; anyone
given the right under Section 37 of the Act
of
1959
to
have
his
representation
considered by the Minister was a person
aggrieved, thus Section applied, If those
rights were infringed; but the applicants
had no right under the statute and no legal
rights had been infringed and therefore
they were not entitled to challenge the
Minister's decision, Salmon J. quoted with
approval these observations of James LJ in
Re Sidebothem.

"The words 'person aggrieved' do
not really mean a man who is disappointed
of a benefit which he might have received if
some other order had been made. A 'person
aggrieved' must be a man who has suffered
a legal grievance, a man 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."

33. This Court has laid down in a
number of decisions that in order to have
the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 an applicant
should ordinarily be one who has &
personal or individual right in the subjectmatter of the application, though in the
case of some of the writs like habeas
corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed
or modified. In other words, as a general
rule, infringement of some legal right or
prejudice to some legal interest inhering in
the petitioner is necessary to give him a
locus standi in the matter-(See State of
Orissa v. Madan Gopal, 1952 SCR28=
(AIR 1952 SC 12); Calcutta Gas Co. v.
State of West Bengal, 1962 Supp 1 SCR 1=
(AIR 1962 SC 1044); Ram Umeshwari
Suthoo v. Member, Board of Revenue
Orissa
(1967)
1
SCA
413;
Gadda
Venkateshwara Rao v. Government of
Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 828; State
of Orissa Vs. Rajasaheb Chandanmall, AIR
7 All. Ghanshyam Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
635
1972 SC 2112; Dr. Satyanarayana Sinha v.
S. Lal & Co. AIR 1973 SC 2720."

17. In the case of Ayaaubkhan
Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others reported in
(2013) 4 SCC 465 the Hon'ble Apex Court
held as under in Paragraph Nos. 9 to 12
which are being reproduced as follows:

"9.
It
is
a
settled
legal
proposition that a stranger cannot be
permitted to meddle in any proceeding,
unless he satisfies the Authority/Court,
that he falls within the category of the
aggrieved persons.

Only
a
person
who
has
suffered, or suffers from legal injury
can challenge the act/action/order etc.
in a court of law. A writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution is
maintainable either for the purpose of
enforcing a statutory or legal right, or
when there is a complaint by the
appellant that there has been a breach
of statutory duty on the part of the
authorities. Therefore, there must be
judicially enforceable right available
for enforcement, on the basis of which
writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The
Court can of course, enforce the
performance of a statutory duty by a
public body, using its writ jurisdiction
at the behest of a person provided that
such person satisfies the Court that he
has a legal right to insist on such
performance. The existence of such
right is a condition precedent for
invoking a writ jurisdiction of the
courts. It is implicit in the exercise of
such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the
relief prayed for must be one to enforce
a legal right. Infact, the existence of
such right, is the foundation of the
exercise of the said jurisdiction by the
Court. The legal right that can be
enforced must ordinarily be the right of
the appellant himself, who complains of
infraction of such right and approaches
the Court for relief as regards the same.
(Vide:State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal
Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12; Saghir Ahmad
& Anr. v. State of U.P. AIR 1954 SC
728;
Calcutta
Gas
Company
(Proprietary) Ltd Vs. State of west
Bengal & others, AIR 1962 SC 1044;
Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2736; and
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders
Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar &
Others, (2009) 2 SCC 784).

10. A "legal right", means an
entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus,
it may be defined as an advantage, or a
benefit conferred upon a person by the rule
of law. The expression, "person aggrieved"
does not include a person who suffers from
a psychological or an imaginary injury; a
person
aggrieved
must
therefore,
necessarily be one, whose right or interest
has been adversely affected or jeopardised.
(Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v. Home
Insurance Co. of New York, AIR 1974 SC
1719; and State of Rajasthan & Others v.
Union of India & Others, AIR 1977 SC
1361.

11. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka
Vs. University of Mumbai, AIR 2008 SC
1289, a similar view was taken by this
Court, observing that, if a person claiming
relief is not eligible as per requirement,
then he cannot be said to be a person
aggrieved regarding the election or the
selection of other persons.

12. In A. Subhash Babu v. State of
A.P., AIR 2011 SC 3031, this Court held:
636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"The
expression
''aggrieved
person' denotes an elastic and an elusive
concept. It cannot be confined within the
bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive
definition. Its scope and meaning depends
on diverse, variable factors such as the
content and intent of the statute of which
contravention is alleged, the specific
circumstances of the case, the nature and
extent of complainant's interest and the
nature and the extent of the prejudice or
injury suffered by the complainant."

18. In the case of Delhi Development
Authority, (2015) 14 SCC 254 the Hon'ble
Apex Court held as under in Paragraph No.
19 which is being reproduced as follows:

"19. In Director of Settlements,
Andhra Pradesh and Ors. vs. M.R. Apparao
and Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 638, while
considering the scope of the power of High
Court to issue a writ of mandamus under
Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court
has held as under:

"17. ....It is, therefore essentially,
a power upon the High Court for issuance
of high prerogative writs for enforcement of
fundamental rights as well as nonfundamental or ordinary legal rights, which
may come within the expression "for any
other purpose". The powers of the High
Courts under Article 226 though are
discretionary and no limits can be placed
upon their discretion, they must be
exercised along the recognised lines and
subject to certain self-imposed limitations.
The expression "for any other purpose" in
Article 226, makes the jurisdiction of the
High Courts more extensive but yet the
Courts must exercise the same with certain
restraints and within some parameters. One
of the conditions for exercising power
under Article 226 for issuance of a
mandamus is that the Court must come to
the conclusion that the aggrieved person
has a legal right, which entitles him to any
of the rights and that such right has been
infringed..."

19. In the case of Dharmraj (supra)
relied upon by Shri Mohan Singh, learned
counsel for the Gaon Sabha, also, the
Division Bench of this Court has held that
the 'person aggrieved' means a person who
is wrongly deprived of his entitlement
which he is legally entitled to receive. The
'person aggrieved' is a person who is
injured or is adversely affected in a legal
sense.

20.

In
the
present
case
the
proceedings
were
drawn
against
the
opposite party No. 5 with respect to
'Naveen Parti' land which is vested in Gaon
Sabha, however, the notice was withdrawn
on the ground that the opposite party No. 5
did not encroach over the land. Every
member of Gram Panchayat has a right of
user over Gaon Sabha land subject to the
provisions of law in this regard, which is
for the benefit of its members. It is also the
duty of every member not only not to
encroach but also to see that it is not
encroached upon by others to protect the
interest of the Gaon Sabha. The petitioners
being members of the Gaon Sabha and the
land being 'Naveen Parti' vested in Gaon
Sabha, which they allege to have been
encroached
upon
would
be
'person
aggrieved' from the order of the Assistant
Collector by which the notice issued to the
alleged encroacher has been withdrawn as
by encroachment of Gaon Sabha land the
benefits which the members of the Gaon
Sabha may be legally entitled to receive,
would be deprived of that entitlement.

21. In Peer Mohammad Vs. State of
U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 13397
7 All. Ghanshyam Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
637
(MB) of 2020, decided on 28.08.2020), the
order passed under Section 67 of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 was held to be
appealable under sub-section (5) and in
view thereof, the petition filed by the
person aggrieved from the order of
Assistant Collector was dismissed as not
maintainable, on the ground of availability
of statutory alternative remedy.

22. Thus, this Court is of the considered
view that the appeal filed by the petitioners was
maintainable and has illegally been dismissed
as not maintainable on the ground that the
petitioners were not party in the proceedings.

23. In the case of Gram Sabha Komna
Balrampur
Vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation Balrampur, 2020 R.D. 512, it
was held that as the writ petition was filed by
the Gram Pradhan without there being any
resolution of the Land Management Committee
or the Gaon Sabha, the same was not
maintainable. This Court referred to para-12of
Appendix-II of U.P. Revenue Code Rules,
2016, which is reproduced as under:

"12. Institution of suits with
consultation of Panel Lawyer- (1) Gram
Panchayat or Gram Sabha will either be a
plaintiff instituting or filing a suit, or a
defendant contesting such a suit. The Chairman
of the Land Management Committee shall not
be entitled to take any action in any suit or
proceedings unless he consults the Panel
Lawyer and obtains order of the Sub-Divisional
Officer or the Collector.

(2) Before instituting a suit or
proceeding, the Chairman of the Land
Management Committee should report full facts
to the tahsildar along with a copy of the
resolution of the Land Management Committee
for filing the suit or proceeding. The tahsildar
shall, after making such enquiry as may be
necessary, and after consulting the tahsil Panel
Lawyer, submit his report to the Sub-Divisional
Officer along with written opinion of the tahsil
Panel Lawyer. If the suit or proceeding is to be
instituted in a court at tahsil headquarters, the
SubDivisional Officer shall take a decision. If
the suit or proceeding is to be instituted in a
court at the district headquarters, the SubDivisional Officer shall submit all the papers to
the Collector for orders. The Collector shall
then decide whether a suit or proceeding is to
be instituted or not. He may, in this connection,
consult the headqquarters Panel Lawyer or the
District Government Counsel, if he considers
necessary.

(3) Where the land of Gram
Panchayat has been allotted to the persons
under the provisions of U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 or
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and any suit is
instituted or any proceeding is initiated by
the
influential
persons
against
such
allotment the pairvi on behalf of the Gram
Panchayat shall be done in such suits or
proceedings in as much as the interest of
the Gram Panchayat and the State
Government is vested in such land."

24. Appendix-II relates to instructions
for the conduct of Gram Panchayat
litigation. The procedure for litigation
which is to be adopted by the Gaon Sabha.
It is evident from para-12(1) and (2) that
such instructions are for the Chairman of
the Land Management Committee where a
suit or other proceeding is instituted by or
against the Gram Panchat or Gaon Sabha.
This Court is of the view that the
Appendix-II para-12 is not attracted as in
the present case, the appeal was not filed by
the Gaon Sabha or the Gram Pradhan. The
case of Gram Sabha Gooma Fatima Jot
638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(supra) is, therefore, not attracted to the
present case.

25. The judgment in the case of Om
Prakash Verma (supra) cited by Shri
Mohan Singh is not on the point as to
whether remedy of appeal is or is not
available to a person aggrieved under
Section 67(5) against the orders passed
under sub section (3) and (4) of Section 67
of the Revenue Code, 2006, if such person
is not party.

26. In view of the above, the petition
succeeds and is partly allowed. The
impugned order dated 27.01.2021 is hereby
quashed. The matter is remanded to the
opposite party No. 2, District Magistrate/
Collector, District Ambedkar Nagar, for
deciding the petitioners' appeal afresh in
accordance
with
law
after
affording
opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned. The opposite party No. 2 shall
issue notice to the opposite party No.
5(respondent No. 1 in appeal) to afford him
opportunity of hearing. The appeal shall be
decided expeditiously, say within a period
of four months from the date of production
of the copy of this order before the
appellate authority. If the appeal is beyond
limitation the matter of condonation of
delay shall be considered first.

27. It is clarified that this Court has
not entered into the merits of the
controversy either way. If any observation
is made on the merits the same is only to
determine the maintainability of appeal
under Section 67(5) and shall have no
effect on the merits of the appeal.
----------
(2021)07ILR A638
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.07.2021
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Misc. Single No. 13416 of 2021

Manoj Kumar Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Avnish Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mohan Singh

Fair Price Shop - Allotment - allotment of
fair price shop licence on death of original
allottee - Subsequent allottee has no right
to continue upon setting aside of the order
of cancellation of fair price shop of the
original allottee - Original allottee having
continued till his death, the erstwhile
subsequent allottee would have no right
to claim to run the fair price shop of the
original allottee merely on account of
death of the original allottee - however,
when the process of allotment of the fair
price shop due to death of the original
allottee takes place, it is open to the
subsequent allottee to participate in such
process as per law (Para 14)

Dismissed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited :

1. Poonam Vs St.of U.P. & ors. 2016 (2) SCC
799

2. Mithilesh Kumari Vs St. of U.P. & ors.. W.P.
No. 30422 (MS) of 2019, dt 05.11.2019

3. Alok Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors.. W.P. No.
4098 (MS), dt 12.07.2018

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard Shri Avnish Kumar Singh,
the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri