# Pyare Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 2005 ALL L.J. 1966

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1631
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-12
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 44707 of 2025
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pyare-lal-v-deputy-director-of-consolidation-2005-all-l-j-1966-54185
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

2 All. Sughar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1631
recovery otherwise if tenable by taking recourse to such provisions as may be available in
law.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1631
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ C No. 44707 of 2025

Sughar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether a person who does not fall within the expression "person aggrieved" under Section 198(4) of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, can maintain proceedings for cancellation of lease and
invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging orders passed therein; and what is
the scope and meaning of the term "person aggrieved".
HEADNOTE
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - ss.198(4), 333 - Constitution of India -
Art.226 - Petition for cancellation of lease alleging that land was not vacant and allotment in
favour of private respondents was illegal - Proceedings initiated under Section 198(4) -
Dismissed by Collector - Revision dismissed - Writ petition filed - Maintainability.

Held: Proceedings under Section 198(4) can be initiated either suo motu or by a "person aggrieved" - A
"person aggrieved" must be a person who has suffered a legal grievance, i.e., a person against whom a
decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully affected his title
- The expression does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or imaginary injury or mere
disappointment or personal inconvenience.
A stranger who is not an aggrieved person cannot maintain a writ for certiorari or mandamus - A stranger
cannot be permitted to meddle in proceedings unless he satisfies that he falls within the category of aggrieved
persons - Existence of a legal right is a condition precedent for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 - A
person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order
or his rights have neither been directly nor substantially invaded - Only a person who has suffered a legal
injury can challenge the action.
In the instant case, aggrieved by the allotment of Plot No. 1560M in favour of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the
petitioner instituted proceedings for cancellation of the lease, asserting possession over the land, though
admittedly no formal allotment had ever been made in his favour - The petitioner had no legal allotment in
his favour at any point of time and thus had no enforceable right over the land in question - The petitioner
does not fall within the definition of "person aggrieved".
In absence of any legal injury or enforceable right, the writ petition is not maintainable. [Paras 10, 11, 13,
14, 15, 17] (E-5)
1632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
CASE LAW CITED
Munshi v. State of U.P., R.D. (117) 615;
M.S. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala, (2000) 7 SCC 552;
Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988;
Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P., (2001) 4 SCC 734;
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465;
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, (1976) 1 SCC 671;
Pyare Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 2005 ALL L.J. 1966

List of Acts
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950;
Constitution of India.
List of Keyword
Person aggrieved; Locus standi; Legal grievance; Legal injury; Maintainability of writ petition; Cancellation of
lease; Section 198(4) proceedings; Stranger to proceedings; Enforceable right; Article 226 jurisdiction.
CASE ARISING FROM
From the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Kannauj
and 16.10.2024 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kanpur Division under Sections 198(4) and 333
of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 respectively.
Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Girish Chandra Maurya, Omraj Singh
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C., Hari Narayan Singh, Vimal Kumar
(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3, Shri Hari Narayan Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent No.4 and Shri Vimal Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.5
& 6 and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia with the following prayers:-

"a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Certiorari quashing the
judgment and order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the respondent no.2/Additional Commissioner
Judicial 1st Kanpur, Division Kanpur in Revision No.3421 of 2024 (Computerized Case
No.C20240300003421) (Sughar Singh Vs. Indrapal and others) under Section 333 of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 as well as judgment and order dated 8.10.2024
passed by the respondent no.3/Additional District Magistrate Finance and Revenue/Additional
Collector Kannauj in case no.1176 of 2018 (Computerized Case No.D201803390001176 (Sughar
2 All. Sughar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1633
Singh Vs. Land Management Committee and others) under section 198(4) U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950."

3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the plot no.1560M area 0.121 hectare
situated in village Ummedpurwa Mauza Anaugi, Pargana & Tehsil & District Kannauj recorded in
revenue record as Banzar land. It is stated in paragraph-7 of the writ petition that Respondent Nos.5
& 6 are not eligible to be allotted agricultural lease over the said plot having sufficient agricultural
land. Petitioner is still in possession over the plot in question from his ancestral period and during
the course of the allotment of agricultural lease in favour of the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 dated
04.01.2014, such land was not vacant because the land of the petitioner i.e., plot no.1562 and 1563
is situated adjacent to the plot no.1560 and the petitioner has constructed house over the plot
no.1560 and installed tube-well over it for irrigation of his agricultural land and some trees are also
grown over it.

4. It is argued that since at the time of allotment the plot in question was not vacant, the same
should not be allotted in favour of the private-respondents.

5. In this view of the matter, after the allotment was made in favour of the private-respondents
on 04.01.2014, suit for cancellation of lease under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was
filed by the petitioner in the court of District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), District Kannauj.
The said suit was dismissed by the Respondent No.3 namely Additional District Magistrate Finance
and Revenue/Additional Collector Kannauj vide order dated 08.10.2024.

6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, statutory revision as provided under Section 333 of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 was filed by the petitioner before the Respondent No.2 namely
Additional Commissioner Judicial Ist Kanpur Division Kanpur which was numbered as Case
No.3421 of 2024. The aforesaid revision was also dismissed by the Respondent No.2 vide order
dated 16.10.2024. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the petitioner has preferred the present writ
petition.

7. It is argued that the petitioner is in possession over the land in question which was allotted
in favour of the private-respondents in the year 2014. When a query was raised by the Court that
whether any legal allotment by any competent authority was ever made in favour of the petitioner
or at any point of time by the revenue authorities, it is very fairly argued that at no point of time the
land in question was allotted in favour of the petitioner.

8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. A complete procedure for cancellation of lease has been provided under Section 198 of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. Sub-section (4) of Section 198 of the Act, 1950 reads as follows:-

"(4) The [Collector] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 (w.e.f. 18.08.1980).] may of
his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land
inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is
irregular, he may cancel the allotment and the lease, if any."
1634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. From perusal of the averments made in the writ petition as well as order passed which are
under challenge in the present writ petition, it is clear that proceedings under sub-section (4) of
Section 198 of the Act, 1950 was initiated by the petitioner. The proceedings under Section
198(4) should be initiated under suo motu or by a person aggrieved.

11. From perusal of the record it is clear that the petitioner does not fall within the definition
of person aggrieved.

12. In Munshi vs. State of U.P. and others reported in R.D. (117) page 615, it was held by
this Court that a person aggrieved must be a man who had suffered a legal grievance. Paragraph-16
of the judgment of this Court in the case of Munshi (Supra) is relevant for the purpose and is
reproduced below:

"Point No. 2:- Though I have already held that the order passed by the learned Member
of Board of Revenue is without jurisdiction but assuming for a moment that it was within his
competence to maintain the revision and decide the same, even then learned Member has erred in
cancelling the lease without assigning any reason. So far as the view taken by the learned Member
of Board of Revenue that the respondent no. 6 is an aggrieved person is concerned, controversy in
this regard is no more res integra as the Apex Court as well as this Court in a catena of decisions,
while considering as to who could be said to be the "person aggrieved", held that although the
meaning of expression "person aggrieved" may vary according to the context of the Statute and
facts of the case nevertheless normally, a person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal
grievance; a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongly deprived him
of something or wrongfully refused something, or wrongfully affected his title to someone.

In M.S. Jayaraj Vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 552, the
Supreme Court considered the matter at length and placing reliance upon a large number of its
earlier judgments including the Chairman, Railway Board & Ors., Vs. Chandrima Das (Mrs.) &
Ors., AIR 2000 SC 988; held that the Court must examine the issue of locus standi from all angles
and the petitioner should be asked to disclose as what is the legal injury suffered by him.

The term "person aggrieved" was also considered and defined in Re: Sidebotham, (1880)
14 Ch. D. 458, wherein it has been observed as under :-

"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."

..................

..................
2 All. Sughar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1635

The "person aggrieved" means a person who is wrongfully deprived of his entitlement
which he is legally entitled to receive and it does not include any kind of disappointment or
personal inconvenience. "Person aggrieved" means a person who is injured or he is adversely
affected in a legal sense. (Vide K.N. Lakshminarasimaiah Vs. Secretary, Mysore S.T.A.T., (1966)
2 Mys. L.J. 199).

Whether a person is injured in strict legal sense, must be determined by the nature of the
injury considering the facts and circumstances involving in each case. A fanciful or sentimental
grievance may not be sufficient to confer a standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria
or a legal grievance, as the law can appreciate and not a stat pro ratione valuntas reasons.

13. The existence of a right in favour of an aggrieved party furnishes the locus standi to
maintain a writ petition as held in Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2001)
4 SCC 734 thus:

"2. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is
not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly
or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his
acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of
the constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction.
The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas -
corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines
the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries caused to a particular
person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or
injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can
take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ
jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal
injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason
or poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantages position, unable to
approach the court for relief."

14. Similarly in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Supreme Court emphasized that existence of enforceable rights
of aggrieved parties form the pre-condition to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India vested in this Court:

"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 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 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
1636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 jurisdiction that the relief prayed
for must be one to enforce a legal right. 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. [Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [AIR 1952 SC
12] , Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. [AIR 1954 SC 728] , Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v.
State of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044] , Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. [(1996) 5 SCC 460 : AIR 1996
SC 2736] and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar [(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. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New
York [(1974) 2 SCC 387 : AIR 1974 SC 1719] and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [(1977) 3
SCC 592 : AIR 1977 SC 1361] .)

11. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai [(2008) 5 SCC 217 : 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."

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji
Bashir Ahmed reported in 1976 (1) SCC 671 held that a stranger who is not an aggrieved person
cannot maintain a Writ for either Certiorari or Mandamus. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid
judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

"50. While a Procrustean approach should be avoided, as a rule, the Court should not
interfere at the instance of a "stranger" unless there are exceptional circumstances involving a
grave miscarriage of justice having an adverse impact on public interests. Assuming that the
appellant is a "stranger", and not a busybody, then also there are no exceptional circumstances in
the present case which would justify the issue of a writ of certiorari at his instance. On the
contrary, the result of the exercise of these discretionary powers, in his favour, will, on balance, be
against public policy. It will eliminate healthy competition in this business which is so essential to
raise commercial morality; it will tend to perpetuate the appellant's monopoly of cinema business
in the town; and above all, it will in effect, seriously injure the fundamental rights of Respondents
Nos. 1 and 2, which they have under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, to carry on trade or
business subject "reasonable restrictions imposed by law".

16. In the case of Pyare Lal and others Vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation
Mainpuri and others reported in 2005 ALL L. J. 1966 it has been held in paragraph-7 that :-
2 All. Satish & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Meerut Division Meerut & Ors.
1637

"Dictionary meaning of word aggrieved is "having suffered loss or injury. "According to
the Black's Law Dictionary aggrieved party/person is "one whose legal right is invaded by an act
complained of, or whose pecuniary interest is directing affected by a decree or judgment. The word
aggrieved refers to a substantial grievance, a denial of some personal or property right, or the
imposition upon a party of a burden or obligation". According to Corpus Juris Secundum volume
IV 356 (1st edition) a party or a person can be said to be aggrieved by a decision only when it
operates directly and injuriously upon his personal, pecuniary or proprietary rights."

17. In this view of the matter, since petitioner does not fall within the definition "aggrieved
person" present writ petition filed on his behalf is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

18. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1637
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ C No. 56747 of 2016

Satish & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Meerut Division Meerut & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether a complaint under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 can be maintained by
persons who are merely residents of the village and do not fall within the ambit of "person
aggrieved"; and
Whether cancellation of allotment at the instance of such persons is legally sustainable.
HEADNOTE
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - s.198(4) - Cancellation of patta -
Residents of village - "Person aggrieved" - Locus standi - Preferential right - Justification:
Held: The complaint filed under sub-section (4) of Section 198 of the Act, 1950 could only be
decided either suo motu by the Collector or on the complaint made by the "person aggrieved" -
The expression "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological
or imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must be one whose right or interest has been adversely
affected or jeopardised - If any person moves an application for cancellation of patta granted in
favour of another person, he has to satisfy that he falls within the ambit and scope of "person
aggrieved" in order to initiate such proceedings - A person who seeks to question the allotment
has to show that he has a preferential right for the said allotment and seeking cancellation of
allotment without showing such preference cannot be questioned except on the intervention of
the Gaon Sabha - It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle