# Hari Chand & Anr v. The Board of Revenue & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 491
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-21
- **Case number:** Writ- B No. 39710 of 2003
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hari-chand-anr-v-the-board-of-revenue-ors-52881
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C., A.C. Srivastava, Anil Kumar, Bhola
Nath Yadav, Chandan Sharma, Hira Lal
Singh (Kushwaha), Kamal Singh, R P Singh,
Ram Surat Saroj, Rohan Gupta, S.D.
Kautilya, S.K. Nigam, S.K. Rao, S.K. Pathak,
Satish Chandra Mishra, Shri Krishna Mishra,
Somesh Khare, V.K. Singh

Civil Law - Constitution of India - Article
226 - Civil Procedure Code,1908 - order
41 Rules 27 - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 195,
197,
198(4),
333
&
333(2)
-
U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules, 1952 - Sections 173(kha), 174 &
175:- Writ Petition - questioning the impugned
orders passed by Board of Revenue whereunder
Board allowed the Revision and rejecting the
recall application - Allotment of land by the
village LMC in favour of 164 ineligible persons -
approved by SDO - being aggrieved petitioners
filed a Complaint Case - allowed - Revision -
dismissed, holding that the allotment in question
had been made against the relevant provisions
of Rule, 1952 - second revision, before the
Board - dismissed, holding that second revision
is not maintainable by same persons - recall
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application - rejected - Writ Petition - opposed
on the ground that petitioners are not persons
aggrieved or falling within the category "of a
person aggrieved" - court finds that, allotment
of land was in complete violation of the Rules of
allotment prescribed, and the respondents
obtained
allotment
in
their
favour
by
misstatement of facts - this court cannot shut
its eye to the aforesaid facts - held, a writ
petition by a member of Gaon Sabha raising
allegations against the action of the Gaon Sabha
in allotting the land in violation of the norms can
be assailed - there is a public element involved
and hence, the complaint as also the instant
writ petition is maintainable - petition allowed,
accordingly.
(Para - 19, 20, 21)

Writ petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Hari Chand & Anr. Vs. The Board of Revenue & Ors.
491
dispute after admitting the claim of the
petitioner in the compromise decree, so as
to be able to transfer any interest by the
sale deed dated 11.7.1966 in favour of
vendees. Hence the vendees did not derive
any title out of the sale deed.

25. In the result the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed and the judgment
and order of the Board of Revenue dated
30.7.1976
is
hereby
quashed.
The
petitioner would also be entitled to her
cost."

20. The order passed by the Board of
Revenue allowing the second appeal and
dismissing
the
plaintiff
suit
for
declaration by passing cryptic judgment
cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The
manner in which impugned judgment has
been passed by the Board of Revenue,
can be a judgment of dismissal of second
appeal, affirming judgment of courts
below but this cannot be a judgment of
reversal by which the second appeal has
been allowed and the suit under Section
229 B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been
dismissed in the exercise of second
appellate jurisdiction.

21. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case as well as ratio of
law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court on
Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act, finding of fact
recorded by trial Court, entry in misilband
register, the impugned judgment passed by
the Board of Revenue dated 14.9.1983 in
Second Appeal No.36 & 37 of 1979-80
cannot be sustained in the eye of law and
the same are hereby set aside.

22. The writ petitions are allowed and
the judgement and decree passed by trial
Court dated 28.1.1978 in both the suit
under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act are affirmed.

23. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 491
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ- B No. 39710 of 2003

Hari Chand & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
The Board of Revenue & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ajay Srivastava, Ayub Khan, Rahul Verma,
Rajesh Tripathi, S.K. Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.C. Srivastava, Anil Kumar, Bhola
Nath Yadav, Chandan Sharma, Hira Lal
Singh (Kushwaha), Kamal Singh, R P Singh,
Ram Surat Saroj, Rohan Gupta, S.D.
Kautilya, S.K. Nigam, S.K. Rao, S.K. Pathak,
Satish Chandra Mishra, Shri Krishna Mishra,
Somesh Khare, V.K. Singh

Civil Law - Constitution of India - Article
226 - Civil Procedure Code,1908 - order
41 Rules 27 - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 195,
197,
198(4),
333
&
333(2)
-
U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules, 1952 - Sections 173(kha), 174 &
175:- Writ Petition - questioning the impugned
orders passed by Board of Revenue whereunder
Board allowed the Revision and rejecting the
recall application - Allotment of land by the
village LMC in favour of 164 ineligible persons -
approved by SDO - being aggrieved petitioners
filed a Complaint Case - allowed - Revision -
dismissed, holding that the allotment in question
had been made against the relevant provisions
of Rule, 1952 - second revision, before the
Board - dismissed, holding that second revision
is not maintainable by same persons - recall
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application - rejected - Writ Petition - opposed
on the ground that petitioners are not persons
aggrieved or falling within the category "of a
person aggrieved" - court finds that, allotment
of land was in complete violation of the Rules of
allotment prescribed, and the respondents
obtained
allotment
in
their
favour
by
misstatement of facts - this court cannot shut
its eye to the aforesaid facts - held, a writ
petition by a member of Gaon Sabha raising
allegations against the action of the Gaon Sabha
in allotting the land in violation of the norms can
be assailed - there is a public element involved
and hence, the complaint as also the instant
writ petition is maintainable - petition allowed,
accordingly.
(Para - 19, 20, 21)

Writ petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:
1. 1996 RD 190,

2. 1999 RD 699,

3. 2008 (105) RD 1,

4. 2004 (1) JCLR (ALL) 25,

5. WRIT - C NO. 36068/2004,

6. Kanhai & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & other- WP No.
44338/2006 - Decided on 02.03.2012,

7. Awadhesh Kumar Vs St. of U.P. - Writ - C No.
32252/2022 - Decided on 15.02.2023,

8. Ram Kumar Vs St. of UP & ors. - Misc. Single
No. 27989/2016 - Decided on 25.11.2016,

9. Hari Shanker Kushwaha & ors.Vs St. of UP &
ors.- Writ Petition No. 64061/2016 decided on
24.11.2017,

10. Brahm Singh Vs Board of Revenue UP
Allahabad & ors.- 2008 (105) RD 1,

11.
Ram
Kumar
Vs
St.
of
U.P.
(MANU/UP/3147/2016),

12.
Ram
Ziyawan
&
ors.Vs
Additional
Commissioner (J), Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur
& ors.- 2014 (124) RD 219,
13. Nathai Lal Dube Vs District Magistrate, Sant
Ravidad Nagar - 2000 (4) AWC 2752.

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

1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Anubhav
Sinha and Sri Ayub Khan, learned counsels
for the petitioners, Sri Somesh Khare along
with Sri S. K. Kumar and Sri Prem Chand
Saroj, learned counsel for the contesting
respondents, learned Standing Counsel
representing the State Respondents and Sri
Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the
Respondent No. 3, the Land Management
Committee concerned.

2. The writ petition has been filed
questioning the orders dated 03.11.2000
and 08.05.2003 (Annexure Nos. 3 & 5) to
the writ petition respectively passed by the
Board of Revenue, U. P. at Allahabad in
Revision No. 64(2) of 1997-98 under
Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act
whereby and whereunder allowing the
Revision vide order dated 03.11.2000 and
rejecting the recall application registered as
Case
No.
49
of
2001-02
as
not
maintainable vide order dated 08.05.2003.

3. The dispute relates to the allotment
of
land
by
the
Land
Management
Committee of Village Gulawati, Pargana
Dankaur,
District
Bulandshahar,
now
Gautam Buddh Nagar, Respondent No. 3 in
favour of 164 persons of the Village vide
allotment order dated 15.12.1989. The
allotment is stated to have been approved
by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar,
Gautam Buddh Nagar, Respondent No. 2
on 10.05.1990.

4. The writ petitioners, who are the
villagers of the village concerned aggrieved
1 All. Hari Chand & Anr. Vs. The Board of Revenue & Ors.
493
by the allotment of the land in favour of the
Respondent No. 4 to 164 along with other
aggrieved persons filed a complaint on
01.06.1990 which was registered as Case
No. 72 of 1991 before the Additional
Collector,
Bulandshahar
seeking
cancellation of the said allotment on the
ground that the allotments were irregular,
not in accordance with the rules and had
been made in favour of the ineligible
persons. The complaint case registered as
Case No. 72 of 1991 was allowed vide
order dated 04.06.1994 passed by the
Additional Collector, Bulandshahar.

5. Against the order dated 04.06.1994,
the Respondent No. 4 to 150 preferred a
Revision
before
the
Additional
Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut
registered as Revision No. 88 of 1994-95
(Balvir Vs. Satvir and others) which came to
be dismissed vide order dated 25.06.1998,
holding that the allotment had been made
against the provisions of Rule 173 (Kha), 174
and 175 of the UPZA & LR Rules 1952.
Aggrieved by the rejection of their Revision
vide order dated 25.06.1998 the Respondent
Nos. 4 to 150 preferred a Second Revision
before the Board of Revenue which was
registered as Revision No. 64(2) of 1997-98
(Bali Ram and others Vs. Satyabir and
others). The Board of Revenue in a most
arbitrary
and
illegal
manner
without
considering the aspect that a second Revision
by the same persons was not maintainable,
proceeded to entertain the second Revision
and allowed the same vide order dated
03.11.2000. The Recall Application filed by
the petitioner seeking recall of the order dated
03.11.2000 was also rejected by the Board of
Revenue vide its order dated 19.01.2001. The
Review
Application
dated
22.08.2002
registered as Case No. 49 of 2001-02 was
also rejected vide order dated 08.05.2003.

6. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Board of Revenue at Allahabad committed
manifest illegality in passing the impugned
orders. He submits that :-

(i) The Board of Revenue erred in
law in entertaining the Second Revision in
exercise of powers under Section 333 of the
UPZA & LR Act, 1950 in view of the
express bar contained in sub Section 2 of
Section 333 thereof.

(ii) The allotment in favour of the
Respondent No. 4 to 150 had been made in
utter violation of the provisions of Rule 173
(Kha), 174 and 175 of the UPZA & LR Rules
1952 and had rightly been cancelled by the
Additional Collector, Bulandshahar. The
Board of Revenue, U. P. at Allahabad
entertained the Revision and allowed the
same on the ground that the Additional
Collector had no jurisdiction to cancel the
allotment and such power vested only in the
Collector in view of the law laid down by this
Court in 1996 RD 190 and 1999 RD 699 in
complete ignorance of the law laid down by
the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2008
(105) RD 1.

(iii) The Board of Revenue
manifestly erred in granting indulgence to
the Respondent/Allottees on the ground
that the petitioners failed to demonstrate
how they were aggrieved by the allotment
ignoring the settled principle that the
allotments were made by playing fraud and
that the petitioners being the residents of
the village could very well raise objections
against the illegal and irregular allotments
of the Goan Sabha Land by the Land
Management Committee.

(iv) The Board of Revenue erred
in
rejecting
the
recall
and
review
applications.
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. It is, accordingly, submitted that
the orders impugned are patently illegal
and deserve to be set aside. The writ
petition is liable to be allowed as prayed.

8. Per contra, Sri Somesh Khare,
learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4
to 150 i.e. the allottees has vehemently
opposed the writ petition and supported the
order passed by the Board of Revenue
setting aside the order of the Additional
Collector cancelling the allotment as also
the order of the Additional Commissioner
upholding the same in Revision. Sri
Somesh Khare has laid much emphasis on
the ground that the petitioners cannot be
said to be persons aggrieved within the
meaning of Section 198(4) of the UPZA &
LR Act to have maintain the complaint
against the allotment made in favour of the
answering respondents giving rise to the
present proceedings.

9. It is contended that the petitioners
are not persons aggrieved/or falling within
the category "of a person aggrieved" as
stipulated by the rigors of Section 198 (4)
of the UPZA & LR Act, 1950. The
Petitioner No. 1 has been shown to have
substantial land holdings in his name
bearing Khata No. 540 and is recorded as
its Sankramaniya Bhumidhar. The writ
petitioners are not landless persons and do
not qualify in the order of preference in
admitting persons to land under Sections
195 and 197 enabling them to become a
"person aggrieved" within the meaning of
Section 198 (4) of the UPZA & LR Act.
They have made no avernment either at the
time of filing the complaint or the instant
writ petition that they are entitled for
allotment of patta by the Gaon Sabha.

10. Reliance has been placed upon the
Division Bench decision of this Court
reported in 2004 (1) JCLR 25 (All.),
decision in Writ-C No. 36068 of 2004,
decision in Writ Petition No. 44338 of
2006 (Kanhai (now deceased) and others
Vs. State of U. P. and others, decided on
02.03.2012, decision in Writ-C No. 32252
of 2022 (Awadhesh Kumar versus State of
U. P.) decided on 15.02.2023, decision in
Misc. Single No. 27989 of 2016 (Ram
Kumar Vs. State of U. P. and others)
decided on 25.11.2016 as also the decision
in Writ Petition No. 64061 of 2016 (Hari
Shanker Kushwaha and others Vs. State
of U. P. through Secretary, Revenue
Department, Lucknow and others) decided
on November 24, 2017 to buttress the point
that the writ petitioners cannot be termed as
"persons aggrieved" so as to maintain the
complaint and consequently the present
writ petition, having not suffered from any
legal injury. It is accordingly submitted that
the order of the Board of Revenue is just
and proper and calls for no interference by
this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and the writ petition
as framed deserves to be dismissed.

11. I have heard learned counsels for
the parties and have perused the records.
From the submissions advanced by the
learned respective counsels for the parties
the
following
questions
arise
for
consideration in this writ petition:-

(a) whether the allotment in
favour of the allottees i.e. respondent no. 4
to 150 suffers from the vice of being
contrary to the provisions of Rule 173
(Kha), 174 and 175 of the U.P.Z.A. & LR
Rules, 1952 and had been rightly cancelled
by the Additional Collector, Bulandshahar.

(b)
whether
the
Additional
Collector, Bulandshahar was within his
powers to cancel the allotment in favour of
1 All. Hari Chand & Anr. Vs. The Board of Revenue & Ors.
495
the allottees in exercise of powers u/s
198(4) of the UPZA & LR Act, 1950.

(c) whether the Second Revision
u/s 333(1) of the UPZA & LR Act before
the Board of Revenue UP at Allahabad was
maintainable.

(d) whether the complaint at the
instance of the writ petitioners against the
allotment made by the Land Management
Committee in favour of the allottees i.e.
respondent no. 1 to 150 as also the instant
writ petition is maintainable on the ground
of locus-standi.

12. The parties are on common
ground as regards the fact that the Land
Management
Committee
of
village
Gulawali, Pargana Dankaur, Bulandshahr,
vide its resolution dated 15.12.1989 allotted
land in favour of 164 persons and such
allotment was got approved by the Sub
Divisional Magistrate concerned vide order
dated 10.05.1990 approving the allotment
in favour of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 150.
A complaint against the allotment was filed
on 01.06.1990 against the allotment, which
was registered as Case No. 72 of 1991. The
Additional Collector, Bulandshahar, vide
its order dated 4.6.1994 allowed the
complaint and set aside the allotment. A
perusal of the order of the Additional
Collector reveals that several anomalies
were found in the proceedings of the
allotment and it was concluded that the
entire
proceedings
were
illegal
and
irregular. The relevant portion of the order
of the Additional Collector dated 4.6.1994
is being quoted here under:-

"मैने पत्ावल पर उपलब्ि साक्ष्य
एवीं ववद्वान अधिवक्ताओ के तको को
सनने के बाद इस तनटकषा पर पहुाँचा हूाँ सवा
प्रथम तो आवींटन पत्ावल देखने से यह
स्पटट है कक आकार पत् 57-01 पर
परगनाधिकार की स्वीकृती नह है। इस
प्रकार तनयम 172, 173 एवीं 174 की
अवहेलना की गयी है जो कक मैनडेटर है।
इस
प्रकार
आवींटन
अतनयसमत
एवीं
अवैिातनक हो जाना है। 74 प्रततवाद
(आवींट ) बाहर के बताये है। इसके सींबींि में
ऐसा कोई साक्ष्य नह ीं है कक जजससे यह
स्पटट हो कक वह गाींव के तनवासी है मात्
यह कह देने से कक वोटर सलस्ट में नाम न
होने से गाींव का तनवासी नह रह जाता है,
गलत है। ओम प्रकाि व िमावीर प्रिान के
सगे लडके व मनोज कपील व प्रवीण
पुत्गण ओमप्रकाि व अजब ससींह मनोज,
मोरध्वज व कवर ससींह पुत्गण िमावीर
प्रिान के सगे पौत् है जजन्हे आवींटन ककया
गया है। इसी प्रकार अन्य बहुत से व्यजक्त
सदस्यों के पुत् वपता व र्ाई है जजनकी
कोई इजाजत आवींटन हेतु जजलाधिकार से
नह ीं ल गयी है। रणजीत पुत् मनसुख तो
ग्रामसर्ा गुसलस्ता का प्रिान है जजसे स्वयीं
बाबू ससींह प्रिान ने स्वीकार कर अपने
जवाब में ककया है। ज्यादातर आवींट
जनपद गाजजयाबाद के है। और प्रिान से
सींबींिी है तहसीलदार ने अपनी आख्या में
यह र्ी स्पटट सलखा है कक पवन व र्ीषण
पुत्गण देवराज नावासलगो के सबींि में जो
वववरण ककया गया है उसके सींबींि में कोई
ऐसा ठोस साक्ष्य प्रततवाद गण द्वारा नह
ददया गया है जजससे यह स्पटट हो कक वह
नावासलग नह है। प्रिान ने जजसने यह
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
आवींटन ककया है स्वयीं माना है कक कुछ
पात् व्यजक्त आवींटन से िेष रह गये है
कुछ गाींव से अन्य गाींव तनवाससयो को
पटटा हो गया है तथा कुछ नावासलगो को
र्ी आवींटन हो गया है। इस प्रकार इस
आवींटन में मनमाने ढींग से कायावाह करके
अतनयसमत एवीं अवैिातनक तर के से अपात्
व्यजक्तयों को आवींटन ददया गया है। इसी
कारण परगनाधिकार ने जाींच के बाद
अध्यक्ष
र्ूसम
प्रबन्िक
ससमतत
को
तनसलजमबत ककया था कायावाह रजजस्टर पर
अन्य के साथ रािेचयाम सदस्य, चन्दर
सदस्य र्ारत ससींह, तेजी व ज्ञानी व समतरो
सदस्यो के हस्ताक्षर / तन०अ० ददखाये गये
है जबकक उन्होने िपथ पत् प्रस्तुत ककया है
उन्होने 12.12.89 को ककसी प्रस्ताव पर
हस्ताक्षर /अींगूठा तनवासी नह ीं ककया है और
ना ह उनकी उपजस्थत में यह कायावाह हुई
है। जजसके सींबींि में की प्रततिपथ पत् र्ी
दाखखल नह ीं ककया गया है। इस प्रकार इनके
िपथ पत्ो पर ववचवास न ककया जाने का
कोई आिार नह ीं है। िपथ पत् के समथान
में चन्दर एवीं तेजी सदस्यों के सिपथ
बयान र्ी हुये है। इस प्रकार इस आवींटन
पूणातया अवैिातनक है। ग्रामसर्ा में कुल
सदस्यो की सींख्या मीदटींग में मय प्रिान के
111 दिाायी है जजसमें से 6 सदस्यो ने िपथ
पत् दाखखल कर कहा है कक उन्हे इस
कायावाह की कोई जानकार नह है इस
प्रकार कोरम ह पूरा नह ीं होता है इस
प्रकार
समस्त
कायावाह
अवैि
एवीं
अतनयसमत हो जाती है और कायावाह बाला
ह बाला हो ससद्ि है।"

13. The above findings clearly show
that the allotment proceedings in favour of
the respondent no. 4 to 150 were in
violation of the Rules 173 (Kha), 174 and
175 of the UPZA & LR Rules, 1952. The
said findings were upheld in Revision u/s
333(1) filed by the allottees Respondent
Nos. 4 to 150 before the Additional
Commissioner, Meerut, Division Meerut.
The findings call for no interference by this
Court. The question no. (a) is answered
accordingly.

14. Learned counsel for the answering
Respondent Nos. 4 to 150 has vehemently
argued that the Additional Collector,
Bulandshahar
was
not
competent
to
exercise his jurisdiction u/s 198(4) and it
was the Collector, Bulandshahar alone,
who was competent to cancel the allotment.
It is urged that in such view of the matter,
the order of the Additional Collector cannot
sustain. This Court is not impressed by the
argument of learned counsel for the
contesting Respondent Nos. 4 to 150. The
issue is no longer res-integra and stands
settled by the Full Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Brahm Singh Vs.
Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and
Others reported in 2008 (105) RD 1,
wherein it has been categorically held that
powers
and
functions
of
Collector
including exercise of powers u/s 198(4) of
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act can be exercised
by the Additional Collector. The question
no. (b) also stands decided accordingly.

15. Now coming to the question no.
(c) regarding maintainability of the Second
Revision by the Respondent-Allottees Nos.
4 to 150 before the Board of Revenue is
1 All. Hari Chand & Anr. Vs. The Board of Revenue & Ors.
497
concerned, in the opinion of the Court the
Second Revision was barred in view of the
express bar contained in section 333(2) of
the
U.P.Z.A.
&
L.R.
Act,
1950.
Admittedly,
the
1st
Revision
being
Revision No. 88 of 1994-95 filed at the
instance of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 150
had been rejected vide order dated
25/6/1998. The Second Revision No. 64 (2)
of 1997-98 before the Board of Revenue
was clearly not maintainable. Question No.
(c) answered accordingly.

16. Now coming to the Question No.
(d), Sri Somesh Khare, learned counsel for
the answering respondent i.e. allottees Nos.
4 to 150 has laid much stress upon the fact
that the petitioners cannot be said to be
persons aggrieved within the meaning of
Section 198(4). Placing reliance upon the
decisions referred to herein before it has
been urged that the complaint at the
instance of the petitioners and other
aggrieved persons was not maintainable
and consequently the present proceedings
are also not maintainable and the Board of
Revenue was completely justified in
allowing the Revision and the said order
does not call for any interference by this
Court.

17. Sri Somesh Khare, learned counsel
for the contesting-respondent Nos. 4 to 150
placing reliance upon the case of Kanhai (now
deceased) and others versus State of U.P. and
others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44338 of
2006, decided on 2.3.2012 submits that A
person who seeks to question the allotment has
to show that he had preferential right for the
said
allotment.
Seeking
cancellation
of
allotment order without showing preference
cannot be questioned except on the intervention
of the Gaon Sabha. Petitioner claims that the
land has been wrongly allotted to the
respondents without claiming that they have
right to seek allotment of the said land under the
Act. Rules with regard to locus-standi is that
judicial redress is available only to a person
who has suffered a legal injury by reason of
violation of his legal right or legal protected
interest by the impugned action of the State or a
public authority. Aggrieved person must show
that he had suffered a legal grievance against
whom a decision which has been pronounced
which has wrongfully refused him of
something, which he had a right to demand. It is
within this precincts that the aggrieved person
can seek redressal of his grievance under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

18. Relying upon the case of Ram Kumar
versus
State
of
U.P.
reported
in
MANU/UP/3147/2016, he further submits as
under:

"12. 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 aggrieved person.

And person means 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 a 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 the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It
is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be
one to enforce a legal right.

13. In fact, 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.

14. Further, 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."

19. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior
Counsel controverting the arguments of Shri
Somesh Khare submits that the complaint as
also the instant writ petition is maintainable as
in respect of the public property of Gaon Sabha
any one can initiate the proceedings or
challenge the order settling such land of the
Gaon Sabha with private persons. Regards may
be had to the co-ordinate Bench decision in the
case of Ram Ziyawan and Others Vs.
Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial),
Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur and Others
reported in 2014 (124) RD 219. Further in
Nathai Lal Dube Vs. District Magistrate,
Sant Ravidas Nagar reported in 2000 (4)
AWC 2752 it has been held that a writ petition
by a member of a Gaon Sabha raising
allegations against the action of the Gaon Sabha
in allotting land in violation of the norms can
be assailed before a writ Court.

20. In the opinion of the Court, under
normal circumstances a complainant may not be
entitled to maintain a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India as he cannot be
judged as a person aggrieved. However, the locus
of a person to maintain a writ petition before the
High Court has to be judged in the context of the
statutory provisions and the facts of the case.
There cannot be any hard and fast rule that in all
cases a complainant cannot maintain a writ
petition. In the case at hand, the Court finds that
the allotment of the land by the Land
Management Committee in favour of the
Respondent Nos. 4 to 150 was in complete
violation of the Rules of allotment prescribed. The
Respondent Nos. 4 to 150 obtained allotment in
their favour by misstatement of facts. This Court
cannot shut its eye to the aforesaid facts. In the
opinion of the Court there is a public element
involved and the complaint as also the instant writ
petition is maintainable. The Question No. (d) is
decided accordingly.

21. In view of the above, the impugned
orders
dated
03.11.2000
and
08.05.2003
(Annexure Nos. 3 & 5) respectively, passed by the
Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, are set
aside.

22. The writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 498
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ- B No. 47925 of 2014
With
Writ-B No. 8596 of 2015

Rajeshwari Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
Dy.
Director
of
Consolidation,
Shahjahanpur & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
R.C. Singh