# Satish & Ors v. Addl. Commissioner Meerut Division Meerut & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1637
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-20
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 56747 of 2016
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satish-ors-v-addl-commissioner-meerut-division-meerut-ors-54186
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

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
1638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in any proceeding unless he satisfies that he falls within the category of aggrieved person, and
merely by virtue of being a resident of the village one cannot be said to fall within the scope of
"person aggrieved" - The Court found that nothing was stated nor any argument raised that the
complainant stood on a higher preferential category in respect of the petitioners, which was sine
qua non for maintaining the application under Section 198(4), and in absence thereof the
application was liable to be rejected - The private respondents, being merely residents of the
village, did not fall within the ambit of "person aggrieved" and were strangers - Accordingly, the
impugned orders dated 03.10.2016 and 30.06.2016 were set aside and quashed and the writ
petition was allowed. (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., 2017 (134) RD 428;
Kanhai v. State of U.P., 2012 (4) ADJ 767;
Hari Shankar Kushwaha v. State of U.P., 2018 (139) RD 521;
Adi Pheroz Shah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai AIR 1971 SC 385;
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar AIR 1976 SC 578;
Utkal University v. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi AIR 1999 SC 943;
Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 5 SCC 413;
Shanti Kumar R. Canji vs. Home Insurance Co. of New York AIR 1974 SC 1719;
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India and others AIR 1977 SC 1361

List of Acts
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
List of Keyword
Cancellation of patta; Person aggrieved; Locus standi; Preferential right; Village resident; Stranger; Legal
injury; Section 198(4); Gaon Sabha land; Allotment dispute.
CASE ARISING FROM
From judgment and order dated 03.10.2016 passed by Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and
order dated 30.06.2016 passed by Additional Collector/ADM (Administration), Bulandshahar.
Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Manish Dev Singh, Nipun Singh
Advs For Respondents: A.B. Singhal, Aditya Bhushan Singhal, Akhilesh Kumar Ojha, C.S.C., Mahesh Narain
Singh, Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, Sharad Kumar Srivastava, Vinod Kumar Upadhyay.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard Shri Nipun Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Abhijit Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 & 2
and Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3/Land
2 All. Satish & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Meerut Division Meerut & Ors.
1639
Management Committee and Shri Vinod Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
private-respondents.

2. Pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties, hence with the consent of the
counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is decided at the admission stage itself.

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners inter-alia with the following
prayers-

"i. Issue an order, direction, or writ in the nature of the certiorari quashing the impugned
judgment and order dated 03-10-2016 passed by the respondent no. 1 herein ie Additional
Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in revision no. 125/2015-15 Satish and others Vs. Jaipal
and others, and revision no 126/2015-15 Harbhajan and others Vs. Ramgopal and others, and
revision no. 117/2015-15 Ikram and others Vs Ravindra and others and in Revision no 116/201515 Kanwal Singh and others Vs. Raghuraj and others u/s 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act
(Annexure no.10 to the writ petition) and judgment and order dated 30-06-2016 passed by the
respondent no. 2 herein ie Additional Collector/ADM (Administration), Bulandshahar in case no
17/2013 Brahm Singh and others Vs. Kanwal Singh and others, and in case no. 21/2013 Ravindra
Singh and others Vs. Harbhajan Singh and others U/s 198(4) of U.P.ZA. and L.R. Act 1950
(Annexure No.7 to the writ petition) whereby and whereunder the agricultural leases as executed in
favour of petitioners herein has been determined/cancelled u/s 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act on
wholly erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.

ii. Issue an appropriate order or direction against the res. no. 1 and 2 herein not to
dispossess the petitioners herein concerning the leased land in pursuance of judgment and order
dated 03-10-2016 passed by the respondent no 1 herein ie. Additional Commissioner, Meerut
Division, Meerut in revision no. 125/2015-15 Satish and others Vs. Jaipal and others, and revision
no. 126/2015-15 Harbhajan and others Vs. Ramgopal and others, and revision no. 117/2015-15
Ikram and others Vs. Ravindra and others and Revision no. 116/2015-15 Kanwal Singh and others
Vs. Raghuraj and others u/s 198(4) of U.P.ZA. and L.R. Act (Annexure no.10 to the writ petition)
and judgment and order dated 30-06-2016 passed by the respondent no. 2 herein i.e. Additional
Collector/ADM (Administration), Bulandshahar in case no. 17/2013 Brahm Singh and others Vs.
Kanwal Singh and others, and in case no. 21/2013 Ravindra Singh and others Vs. Harbhajan Singh
and others U/s 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act 1950 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition)."

4. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the Land Management Committee of
the Gaon Sabha namely Biraudi Tajpur Tehsil Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar passed a
unanimous resolution on 20-04-1994, whereby an agricultural lease was granted in favour of
various persons including the present petitioners. The aforesaid resolution was duly approved by
the then Deputy Collector/Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 12-5-1994. The private
respondents namely Respondents Nos. 4 to 33 moved an application dated 29-06-1994 under sub
section (4) of Section 198 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
(hereinafter to be referred as "Act 1950"), before the Collector, Bulandshahar.
1640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. On the basis of the aforesaid application, 2 cases were registered under Sub section (4) of
Section 198 of the Act 1950, being Case No.17 of 2013, Computer Case No.D2013111700177,
(Brahm Singh and Another vs. Kamal Singh and Others) and Case No. 21 of 2013, Computer Case
No. D20131117001146, (Ravindra Singh and Another vs. Harbhajan Singh and Others).

6. In the aforesaid proceedings, a report was submitted by the concerned Sub Divisional
Officer before the District Collector, Bulandshahar on 15-07-1994. In the aforesaid report the
allegations were made to the effect that so called resolution was not carried out properly. In the
aforesaid cases Petitioners submitted their Written Statements on 23-03-1995 whereby and
whereunder they vehemently refuted the allegation as contained in the application in question. The
aforesaid application was allowed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration) vide its
order dated 18-07-1995.

7. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, some of the petitioners filed a Revision before the
Commissioner, Bulandshahar which was allowed vide order dated 9-12-1997. The aforesaid order
was challenged by the complainant/Private respondents before the Board of Revenue and
ultimately the Revision of the complainant was dismissed vide order dated 19-10-2001 passed by
the Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad.

8. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the private respondents approached this Court by filing two
writ petitions namely Writ B No.40986 of 2001 (Brahm singh v Board of Revenue, UP Alld. and
others) and Writ B No.40983 of 2001 (Fateh Mohd. vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at Alld. and
Others). Both the writ petitions were clubbed together and finally decided by the Coordinate Bench
of this court vide judgement and order dated 03-09-2012. Order reads as follows:

"Heard Sri R.B. Singhal learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri A.B. Singhal learned
counsel for the petitioner Sri M.C. Singh for respondent nos. 5, 29 and 30 and learned Standing
Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 as also learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

According to Sri R.B. Singhal learned counsel for the petitioner under the order dated
9.12.1997 in Revision no. 126 of 1995 (Harbhajan Singh and others Vs Ravindra Singh and others)
connected with Revision no. 127 of 1997 (Kanwal Singh Vs Brahm Singh and others) the
Additional Commissioner has set aside the order dated 18.7.1995 of the Additional Collector solely
on the ground that the principles of natural justice were violated and that the Gaon Sabha which is
a necessary party was not impleaded in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act (herein after referred to as the Act).

Learned counsel states that the petitioner feeling aggrieved filed Revision no. 22 of 199798 and 23 of 1997-98 (Brahm Singh Vs Kanwal Singh) before the Board of Revenue wherein by the
impugned order dated 19.10.2001 the revision of the petitioner has been rejected on two grounds.
According to Sri Singhal the first ground taken by the Board of Revenue was that the Additional
Collector cannot exercise the power or jurisdiction of a Collector in proceedings under Section
198 (4) of the Act and the second was that the Board of Revenue has affirmed the order passed by
the Additional Commissioner on the question of violation of principles of natural justice.
2 All. Satish & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Meerut Division Meerut & Ors.
1641

According to Sri Singhal in case there is violation of principles of natural justice and
such an order is set aside then the matter ought to have been remanded to the authority to
reconsider the matter under Section 198 (4) of the Act.

Learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Sri M.C. Singh learned
counsel for the contesting respondents have justified the impugned order and state that there was
gross violation of principles of natural justice and hence the order of the Additional Collector was
rightly set aside by the Additional Commissioner and revision filed by the petitioner was rightly
rejected by the Board of Revenue. He states that insofar as the merits of the matter is concerned a
concurrent finding of fact has been recorded that there was violation of principles of natural justice
and hence the impugned order should not be interfered with.

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record clearly the observation of the Board of Revenue that the Additional Collector cannot
exercise the power and jurisdiction of the Collector in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act
is erroneous in view of the Full Bench decision dated 29.04.2008 passed on a reference made in
this writ petition reported in 2008 (105) RD 1 as such the aforesaid view taken by the Board of
Revenue being illegal is set aside.

Insofar as the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Additional Commissioner and
the Board of Revenue on the issue of violation of principles of natural justice is concerned they are
concurrent findings of fact and there is nothing on record of this writ petition to indicate that the
principles of natural justice were not violated by the Additional Collector. Clearly the Gaon Sabha
was a necessary party which was not made a party and the respondents before the Additional
Collector were not heard. As such the order was exparte.

However while not interfering in the concurrent findings of fact recorded therein it
appears that when there was violation of principles of natural justice and the order of the
Additional Collector required to be set aside the matter ought to have been remanded by the
Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue to the Additional Collector for re-deciding the
matter in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. As such no
interference is required in the impugned orders where findings of fact have been recorded
regarding violation of principles of natural justice.

However, this writ petition is finally disposed of by providing that the matter stands
remanded to the Additional Collector to proceed in the application under Section 198 (4) of the Act
in accordance with law.

No order is passed as to costs. "

9. By the aforesaid order the matter was remanded to the Additional Collector to proceed in
the application under sub section (4) of section 198 of the Act, 1950 in accordance with Law. After
remand of the matter, the concerned Gaon Sabha submitted its Written statement on 27-03-2015. In
the aforesaid Written Statement the Gaon Sabha clearly refuted the allegations contained in the
complaint.
1642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Subsequently an order dated 30-06-2016 was passed by the Respondent no. 2/ Additional
Collector (Administration), Bulandshahar, by which land which was allotted in favour of the
petitioners dated 20-04-1994 as well as its approval order passed by the Deputy Collector/SDO
dated 12-05-1994 were cancelled.

11. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the Petitioners have preferred as many as 4 Revisions
before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, which was subsequently transferred to the
Court of Additional Commissioner (Judicial-Ist), Meerut Division, Meerut under Section 333 of the
Act, 1950, which was numbered as Revision No.125 of 2015 (Satish and Others vs. Jaipal and
Others), Revision No.126 of 2015 (Harbhajan and Others vs Ramgopal and Others), Revision
No.117 of 2015 (Ikram and Others vs. Ravindra and Others) and Revision No.116 of 2015 (Kanwal
Singh and Others vs. Raghuraj and Others). The aforesaid Revisions were clubbed together and
Revision No.125 of 2015 (Satish and Others vs. Jaipal and Others) was treated as a leading
Revision. The aforesaid revisions were dismissed by the Respondent no. 1 namely Additional
Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut vide its order dated 3-10-2016.

12. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition.
The Writ Petition was duly entertained and interim order of status quo has been passed by this
Court in favour of the Petitioners on 23-12-2016.

13. It is argued by the counsel for the Petitioners that the allotment of the land was made in
favour of near and dear of the Pradhan of the Gaon sabha is absolutely false and incorrect and in
this regard Written statement filed by the Gaon Sabha dated 27-03-2015 has not at all been taken
into consideration. It is further argued that though various grounds were taken in the memo of
Revision but not a single ground was taken into consideration by the Respondent no.1 while
dismissing the aforesaid Revision. Hence, the Revisional Court clearly committed an error of law
in proceedings with the matter and dismissing the Revisions by non-speaking order. It is further
argued that complainant has not stated anywhere in their complaint that they stood on higher
preferential category in respect to the Petitioners and this was sine qua non for maintaining the
application under section 198(4) of the Act 1950 and as such in the absence of the same application
was liable to be rejected but this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the
court below.

14. It is further argued that the court below relied upon the report dated 15-07-1994 submitted
by the concerned Sub Divisional Officer, Sikandarabad but copy of the aforesaid report has never
been provided to the petitioners. It is further argued that the entire matter was remanded back vide
order dated 03-09-2012 by this Court in Writ B No.40986 of 2001 (Brahm Singh vs. Board of
Revenue U.P. at Allahabad and Others), and in such contingencies it was incumbent upon the
respondent no.2 to have record a fresh finding qua denovo enquiry as the earlier orders were
already set aside by the concerned Commissioner and which has also been affirmed by the Board of
Revenue U.P. at Allahabad and those findings of concerned Revisional Court qua court of
Additional Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad was not entirely upset by
the Hon'ble court in Writ B No.40986 of 2001 (Brahm Singh vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at
Allahabad and Others), and such being the position then it was legally mandatory for the
Respondent No.2 to have carried out fresh exercise for proceeding further and admissible evidence
2 All. Satish & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Meerut Division Meerut & Ors.
1643
but this salutary exercise was not adhered by the respondent no.2 and accordingly it manifested
grave error of law apparent on record.

15. It is further argued that as per sub Section (4) of Section 198 of the Act, 1950 proceedings
could only be initiated either suo motu by the Collector or on the application of any "Aggrieved
Person" by a allotment of land. It is further argued that insofar as the present case is concerned
nothing has been stated in the complaint made by the private respondents that they are the
'aggrieved person'. It is further argued that though this aspect of the matter has been duly raised by
the petitioners before the Revisional Authority and though the same was also duly taken note, but
the same was not decided in a proper manner. Hence, the orders which are under challenged are
liable to be quashed.

behalf of Gaon Sabha as well as counsel for the private-respondents that after looking into the
entire aspect of the matter and going through the records, impugned orders were passed by the
Authorities which does not call for any interference by this court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of the India. It is further argued that since large number of irregularities were
committed at the time of allotment of land, the resolution of allotment of Land dated 20.04.1994
and approval order dated 12.05.1994 were rightly cancelled.

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

18. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the complaint was made by the Private
Respondents against the Petitioners under Sub Section (4) of Section 198 of the Act, 1950. A
complete procedure has been provided under the aforesaid Section which reads as follows:-

Section 198(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."

19. From the bare reading of the said provisions, the position which emerged out that the
Collector may of his own motion or on an application of any person aggrieved initiate a proceeding
in respect to grant of patta, thus, if any person who moves an application for cancellation of patta
which is granted in favour of another person then he has to satisfy that whether he comes within the
ambit and scope of person aggrieved in order to enable him to initiate the proceedings for
cancellation of patta.

20. In the present case, the ground taken by the private-respondent for initiating a proceeding
under section 198(4) of the Act that they are resident of the said village by virtue of the same, they
did not fall within the ambit and scope of the word "person aggrieved" rather they are strangers.

21. 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. Any 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
1644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

22. From perusal of the aforesaid it is clear that the complaint filed under sub section (4) of
Section 198 of the Act, 1950 could only be decided either by suo motu by the Collector or on the
complaint made by the 'person aggrieved'. Nothing has been stated in the entire writ petition nor
any argument has been raised that the complainant stood on higher preferential category in respect
to the Petitioners and this was sine qua non for maintaining the application under section 198(4) of
the Act, 1950 and as such in the absence of the same application is liable to be rejected.

23. In Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2017 (134) RD 428, definition
as well as the scope of the term "Aggrieved Person" as per Section 198 of the Act was briefly
discussed. One who moves an application has to satisfy the mandate of being an aggrieved person.
Merely by virtue of being a resident of the village one cannot be said to be falling within the scope
of an aggrieved person, reinforcing the settled legal proposition that a stranger to the suit cannot be
said to be person aggrieved. Further, "Person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers
from psychological or imaginary injury. Paragraph Nos.10, 11, 12 and 14 of the aforesaid
Judgment passed in the case of Ram Kumar (Supra) is reproduced below:

10. Thus, if any person who moves an application for cancellation of patta which is
granted in favour of another person then he has to satisfy that whether he comes within the ambit
and scope of person aggrieved in order to enable him to initiate the proceedings for cancellation of
patta.

11. In the present case, the ground taken by the petitioner for initiating a proceeding
under section 198(4) of the Act that he is resident of the said village by virtue of the same, he does
not come within the ambit and scope of the word "person aggrieved" rather he is a stranger
person.

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.

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.

24. In the case of Kanhai and Others vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 212 (4) ADJ
767 It was held that, a person who seeks to question the allotment has to show that he has a
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. Thus, having failed
2 All. Satish & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Meerut Division Meerut & Ors.
1645
to disclose their right to possess the land, respondents could not be said to have any locus to
question the order. Relevant para reads as follows:-

5. The Gaon Sabha has competence to allot the said land in terms of Section 198 of the
UPZA & LR Act to class of persons defined therein. While making allotment provision of Section
198 of the Act are required to be complied with. Section 198 of the Act stipulates allotment to be
made on the basis of preference to be given to a particular Class. 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.

6. 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.

25. Similarly in the case of Hari Shankar Kushwaha and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
Reported in 2018 (139) RD 521, it was emphasized that only a person aggrieved be allowed to
challenge the patta. Revevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:-

5. Who is a person aggrieved was a subject matter of judicial interpretation in Adi
Pheroz Shah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai MANU/SC/0044/1970 : AIR 1971 SC 385. The Hon'ble Apex
Court had said:- "From these cases it is apparent that any person who feels disappointed with the
result of the case is not a person aggrieved. He must be disappointed of a benefit which he would
have received if the order had gone the other way. The order must cause him a legal grievance by
wrongfully depriving him of something."

6. From the above, it is clear that a person can be said to be aggrieved only when his
rights are affected because of the existence of the patta, meaning thereby that if the patta goes then
he would either continue to remain in possession or come into possession and thereafter till the
land. The expression " person aggrieved" was also explained in Pyare Lal v. Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Mainpuri Camp at Etah and others MANU/UP/0991/2004 : 2005 (98) RD 106,
wherein this Court had held that only if a person who was aggrieved had sought to get a patta
cancelled would the Collector initiate proceedings. In the instant case, the complainants were not
persons aggrieved and, therefore, the very fact that the complaint was not filed by a person who
was eligible to file the complaint would make the impugned orders unsustainable in law. After it
has been found that the complaint itself was not maintainable nothing further ought to be looked
into. However, since the Collector/Assistant Collector himself was required to make the enquiry
and he did not make the enquiry himself, I also hold that orders were bad on account of the fact
that the Collector/Assistant Collector himself did not make the enquiry.
1646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

26. It is settled law that a person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the
act/action/order etc. by filing a writ petition. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is
maintainable for enforcing a statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by the petitioner
that there is a breach of the statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a
judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to.
The Court can enforce the performance of a statutory duty by public bodies through its writ
jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal
right to insist on such performance. The existence of the said right is the condition precedent to
invoke the writ jurisdiction. [Utkal University etc. Vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and
others (AIR 1999 SC 943) and Laxminarayan R. Bhattad and others vs. State of Maharashtra
and another (2003) 5 SCC 413].

27. Legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. It is, in fact, an advantage or
benefit conferred upon a person by a rule of law [Shanti Kumar R. Canji vs. Home Insurance
Co. of New York (AIR 1974 SC 1719) and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India and others
(AIR 1977 SC 1361)].

28. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Hazi Bashir Ahmad and others [AIR
1976 SC 578], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that only a person who is aggrieved by an order,
can maintain a writ petition. The expression 'aggrieved person' has been explained by the Apex
Court observing that such a person must show that he has a more particular or peculiar interest of
his own beyond that of the general public in seeing that the law is properly administered. In the said
case, a cinema hall owner had challenged the sanction of setting up of a rival cinema hall in the
town contending that it would adversely affect monopolistic commercial interest, causing
pecuniary harm and loss of business from competition. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed as
under:-

"Such harm or loss is not wrongful in the eye of law because it does riot result in injury
to a legal right or a legally protected interest, the business competition cousing it being a lawful
activity. Judicially, harm of this description is called daminum sine injuria. The term injuria being
here used in its true sense reason why law suffers a person knowingly to inflict harm of this
description on another, without holding him accountable for it, is that such harm done to an
individual is a gain to society at large. In the light of the above discussion, it is demonstratively
clear that the appellant has not been denied or deprived of a legal right. He has not sustained
injury to any legally protected interest. In fact, the impugned order does not operate as a decision
against him, much less does it wrongfully effect his title to something. He has not been subjected to
legal wrong. He has suffered no grievance. He has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hand on.
Therefore, he is not a "person aggrieved" to challenge the ground of the no objection certificate.
(see Babua Ram and others Vs. State of U.P. and another (1995) 2 SCC 689 and Northern Plastics
Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. and others (1997) 4SCC 452) and a decision given
by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009
(27) LCD 1373".

29. In Collin's English Dictionary, the word "aggrieved" has been defined to mean "to ensure
unjustly especially by infringing a person's legal rights". In Webster Comprehensive Dictionary,
2 All. Sher Bahadur Singh Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial Lucknow & Ors.
1647
International Edition at page 28, 'aggrieved person' is defined to mean "subjected to ill-treatment,
feeling an injury or injustice. Injured, as by legal decision adversely infringing upon one's rights".
In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Fifth Ed., Vol. 1, pages 83-84, person aggrieved means "person
injured or damaged in a legal sense".

30. In Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. at page 65, aggrieved has been defined to mean
"having suffered loss or injury; damnified; injured", aggrieved person has been defined to mean:

"One whose legal right is invaded by an act complained of, or whose pecuniary interest is
directly and adversely affected by a decree or judgment. One whose right of property may be
established or divested. The word "aggrieved" refers to a substantial grievance, a denial of some
personal, pecuniary or property right, or the imposition upon a party of a burden or obligation."

31. Thus, the person aggrieved is, therefore, in this context, would mean a person who had
suffered legal injury or one who has been unjustly deprived or denied of something.

32. From perusal of the facts as narrated above and also for the arguments as has been raised
by the counsel for the respondents it is clear that complainants who moved application under
Section 198(4) of the Act, 1950 against the petitioners does not fall within the defenition of person
aggrieved.

33. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the order dated 03.10.2016
passed by the Respondent No.1 namely Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut as well
as order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the Respondent No.2 namely Additional Collector/ A.D.M.,
(Administration), Bulandshahar are liable to be set aside and are hereby quashed.

34. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1647
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1002144 of 2002

Sher Bahadur Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Judicial Lucknow & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
Petitioner's land was auctioned for recovery of dues. Sale conducted and approved by S.D.O.. Petitioner filed
appeal before Commissioner. Commissioner decided matter on merits without formally condoning delay.
Petitioner challenged jurisdiction of S.D.O. to confirm sale.