# Shailesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 335
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-21
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 97 of 2019
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker, Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shailesh-kumar-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48526
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Land Law - The U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 - Section 234(3) - U.P. Land Record
Manual
-
manner
and
procedure to
maintain the land records - in force on the
date of commencement of the Revenue
Code, 2006 - shall continue to remain in
force - to the extent they are not
inconsistent with the provisions of the
Revenue
Code,
2006
until
amended
rescinded or repealed by any regulations
made under this Section - The Revenue
Code Rules, 2016 - only a person who has
suffered from some legal injury can
challenge the Act/orders/Rules etc. in a
Court of law - rule of locus standi in PIL -
no
rigid
litmus
test
-
Courts
are
empowered to examine the case on
settled parameters - dominant object of
PIL - to ensure the observance of the
provisions of the Constitution or the Law,
which can be best achieved to advance the
cause of a community or disadvantaged
groups. (Para -9,19 )

(B) PIL- "Public Interest" - Something in
which the public, the community at large,
has some pecuniary interest, or some
interest by which their legal rights or
liabilities are affected - does not mean
anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or
as the interests of the particular localities,
which may be affected by the matters in
question - Interest shared by citizens
generally in affairs of local, State or
national Government. (Para -10,11 )

(C) PIL - Public interest litigation is a
weapon - to be used with great care and
circumspection - judiciary has to be
extremely careful to see that behind the
beautiful veil of public interest an ugly
private malice, vested interest and/or
publicity seeking is not lurking - used as
an effective weapon in the armory of law
for delivering social justice to the citizens
- aimed at redressal of genuine public
wrong or public injury and not publicity
oriented
or
founded
on
personal
vendetta.(Para - 14,15)
Petition filed - declaring the U.P. Land Record
Manual as ultra-vires the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, and the Revenue Code Rules, 2016

HELD:-Petition non maintainabe in view of the
fact that Section 234(3) of the U.P. Revenue
Code,
2006,
itself
takes
care
of
the
inconsistency of the Land Record Manual and
upholds it only to the extent it is not
inconsistent with the provisions of the Revenue
Code, 2006.(Para -20 )

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

5 All. Shailesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
335
(2022)05ILR A335
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 97 of 2019

Shailesh Kumar Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jai Shanker Misra, Sri Vijai Shanker
Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Land Law - The U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 - Section 234(3) - U.P. Land Record
Manual
-
manner
and
procedure to
maintain the land records - in force on the
date of commencement of the Revenue
Code, 2006 - shall continue to remain in
force - to the extent they are not
inconsistent with the provisions of the
Revenue
Code,
2006
until
amended
rescinded or repealed by any regulations
made under this Section - The Revenue
Code Rules, 2016 - only a person who has
suffered from some legal injury can
challenge the Act/orders/Rules etc. in a
Court of law - rule of locus standi in PIL -
no
rigid
litmus
test
-
Courts
are
empowered to examine the case on
settled parameters - dominant object of
PIL - to ensure the observance of the
provisions of the Constitution or the Law,
which can be best achieved to advance the
cause of a community or disadvantaged
groups. (Para -9,19 )

(B) PIL- "Public Interest" - Something in
which the public, the community at large,
has some pecuniary interest, or some
interest by which their legal rights or
liabilities are affected - does not mean
anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or
as the interests of the particular localities,
which may be affected by the matters in
question - Interest shared by citizens
generally in affairs of local, State or
national Government. (Para -10,11 )

(C) PIL - Public interest litigation is a
weapon - to be used with great care and
circumspection - judiciary has to be
extremely careful to see that behind the
beautiful veil of public interest an ugly
private malice, vested interest and/or
publicity seeking is not lurking - used as
an effective weapon in the armory of law
for delivering social justice to the citizens
- aimed at redressal of genuine public
wrong or public injury and not publicity
oriented
or
founded
on
personal
vendetta.(Para - 14,15)
Petition filed - declaring the U.P. Land Record
Manual as ultra-vires the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, and the Revenue Code Rules, 2016

HELD:-Petition non maintainabe in view of the
fact that Section 234(3) of the U.P. Revenue
Code,
2006,
itself
takes
care
of
the
inconsistency of the Land Record Manual and
upholds it only to the extent it is not
inconsistent with the provisions of the Revenue
Code, 2006.(Para -20 )

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Janata Dal Vs H.S. Chowdhary & ors., (1992)
4 SCC 305

2. Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs St. of W.B., 2004 (3)
SCC 349

3. BALCO Employees Union (Regd) Vs U.O.I. &
rs., (2002) 2 SCC 333

4. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee
& anr. Vs C.K. Rajan & ors. ,(2003) 7 SCC 546

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)
336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. This writ petition styled as a PIL
has been filed for declaring the U.P. Land
Record Manual as untra-vires the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, and the Revenue
Code Rules, 2016. Although the prayer
made in the writ (PIL) is not so specific but
from the tenor of the petition it is borne out
that the petitioner seeks the aforesaid relief.
We however quote the reliefs claimed in
the petition which are as under:-

"1. Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of Certiorari declaring U.P.
Land
Record
Manual
as
ultra-virus
(deliberately misspelt to reproduce as it
appears in the petition)

issue a writ order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus commanding the
respondents to make new U.P. Land Record
Manual as per provisions of the U.P.
Revenue Code 2006 or amend Para ka-124
of U.P. Land Record Manual in accordance
with the class of the tenure as defined in
U.P. Revenue Code 2006.

issue any other writ order or
direction which the Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case."

2. It is contended on behalf of the
petitioner that he is a social worker and
farmer and takes active part in the social
work and espouses the cause of poor villagers
and farmers and has no personal interest in
filing the present PIL petition which is being
filed for the benefit of the villagers and public
at large. It is contended that the instant
petition raises the issue for the general
interest of the public as U.P. Land Record
Manual is an old Manual and is not according
to U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

3. Before dealing with the plea as
raised in the writ PIL, it would be apposite
to briefly state about the U.P. Land Record
Manual and the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
as also the Revenue Code Rules, 2016
framed thereunder.

4. The U.P. Land Record Manual is a
collection of Rules framed under Section
234 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 as well
as
instructions
issued
by
the
State
Government in relation to various matters.
Chapter -V of Part-I of the Manual relates
to the map and Khasra, Chapter VIII deals
with the Khatauni. The preface to the
Manual shows that Chapters III to XI of
Part-I of the Manual have been framed
under Clause (d) of Section 234 of the
Land Revenue Act, 1901. Thus the rules
contained in Chapter V and VIII of the
Manual are statutory Rules made under
Section 234. Chapter-V dealing, inter alia,
with Khasra consists of paras 55 to 102.
Chapter VIII relates to Khatauni and
consists of paras 121 to 160. Para 60
provides that Khasra shall be prepared in
Form No. P-3. Form No. P-3 consists of 21
columns. Column- 5 is meant for the name
of the cultivator. In Column No.6 are to be
entered the names of sub-tenants or tenants
of sir, or tenants of permanent tenureholders, or rent free grantees, or grantees at
a favourable rate of rent or occupier of land
without the consent of the persons entitled
to admit such sub-tenants. Column No.21 is
the remark column. Para 71 provides for
the entry in Column No.5. It is not only the
name of the cultivator but also the "nature
of his rights' i.e. the class of his tenure and
where necessary, the term of cultivation,
have to be entered. These entries are to be
made in accordance with paras 72 to 86,
124 and 124-A and 126 to 129 as the case
may be. Paras 124 to 129 are in Chapter
VIII dealing with Khatauni. In substance
the U.P. Land Record Manual provides the
rules and procedures for preparation and
maintenance of Land Records.
5 All. Shailesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
337

5. The U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (U.P.
Act No.8 of 2012) has been promulgated to
consolidate and amend the law relating to
land tenures and land revenue in the State
of Uttar Pradesh and to provide for matters
connected therewith and incidental thereto.
There were as many as 39 Acts relating to
revenue law enforced in the State of U.P.
Out of these Acts, the Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 and the U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901, are the most prominent. The
aforesaid Acts have been amalgamated in
the U.P. Revenue Code after repealing
them. In the First Schedule 32 Acts have
been mentioned which have been repealed.
Other repealed Acts are such which have
either lost their efficacy or were operating
in small areas of the State. Most of the
provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901 have been re-enacted in
the Code. Section 234(3) of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, provides that the
Revenue Court Manual and the Land
Record Manual in force on the date of
commencement of the Code shall continue
to remain in force until amended, rescinded
or repealed by any regulations made under
the section.

6. Now comes the question as to
whether the constitutional validity of the
provisions of the U.P Land Record Manual
can be questioned in a writ petition styled
as a Public Interest Litigation.

7. The counsel for the respondents in
opposition to the petition contends that the
vires of the U.P. Land Record Manual
cannot be challenged/questioned in a writ
petition styled as Public Interest Litigation.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf
of respondents No. 1 & 2 sworn by Sri
Vishram s/o Raja Ram posted as OSD,
Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad wherein
a categorical stand has been taken that the
provisions of an enactment can be struck
down as ultra-vires only on two grounds (i)
due to lack of legislative competence; or
(ii) violation of any of the fundamental
rights of any other constitutional provision.
The petitioner has failed to establish that
the relevant provisions which the petitioner
is alleging to be ultra-vires are actually
violative to any fundamental rights as
envisaged
under
Article-14
of
the
Constitution of India or there is lack of
legislative competence. Reliance is also
placed upon Article 372 of the Constitution
of India.

8. It is for the petitioner to satisfy the
Court about the maintainability of the
petition which is styled as a PIL. The
petitioner in the instant case is not
espousing his own cause, but is seeking a
relief for declaring U.P. Land Record
Manual as ultra-vires the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006. In the entire petition we do not
find a single word which could convey that
the petitioner is a person who is directly
aggrieved. The maintainability of the
petition requires close examination though
it is styled as a Public Interest Litigation.

9. We are of the opinion that only a
person who has suffered from some legal
injury can challenge the Act/orders/Rules
etc. in a Court of law. Writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
maintainable for the purpose of enforcing a
statutory or legal right, where there is a
complaint of breach of statutory duty on the
part of the Authorities. The rule of locus
standi in PIL requires no rigid litmus test
but Courts are empowered to examine the
case on settled parameters. The dominant
object of PIL is to ensure the observance of
the provisions of the Constitution or the
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Law, which can be best achieved to
advance the cause of a community or
disadvantaged groups.

10. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary
(fifth Edition) ''Public Interest' is defined as
"A matter of public or general interest"
does not mean that which is interesting as
gratifying curiosity or a love of information
or amusement; but that in which a class of
the community have a pecuniary interest, or
some interest by which their legal rights or
liabilities are affected...."

11. In Black's Law Dictionary (6th
Edition) "Public Interest" is defined as
"Something in which the public, the
community at large, has some pecuniary
interest, or some interest by which their
legal rights or liabilities are affected. It
does not mean anything so narrow as mere
curiosity, or as the interests of the particular
localities, which may be affected by the
matters in question. Interest shared by
citizens generally in affairs of local, State
or national Government."

12. The concept of PIL initially surfaced
in the year 1976 in our Country. After
germination of the seeds of concept of PIL in
the soil of our judicial system this Rule of PIL
was nourished, nurtured and developed by the
Apex Court in series of decisions. The
traditional syntax of law in regard to locus
standi for a specific judicial redress, has been
relaxed to achieve the avowed purpose. The
recognition for departing with the strict rule of
locus standi was to echo the voice of
downtrodden or poor who are unable to
approach the Court for one reason or the other.
Gradually, the Courts have perceived, misuse
of
Public
Interest
Litigation,
hence,
examination of the bonafides of petitioner has
become an order of the day.

13. The Supreme Court in the case of
Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary and
others, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 305
observed as under:-

"98. While this Court has
laid down a chain of notable decisions with
all emphasis at their command about the
importance and significance of this newlydeveloped doctrine of PIL, it has also
hastened to sound a red alert and a note of
severe warning that courts should not allow
its process to be abused by a mere
busybody or a meddlesome interloper or
wayfarer or officious intervener without
any interest or concern except for personal
gain or private profit or other oblique
consideration."

14. Undisputedly, PIL is a weapon
which has to be used with great care and
circumspection and Courts have to be
extremely careful to see that behind a
beautiful veil of Public Interest, whether
any private malice, vested interest or
publicity stunt is lurking. Basically, PIL
should be aimed at redressal of public
wrong or public injury. The approach of
court is to make differentia in between
bonafide cause raised for the benefit of
public or it is nothing but for oblique
consideration. The Court must not allow its
process
to
be
abused
for
oblique
consequences.
In
such
proceedings
voluminous time of the Court is consumed
which time otherwise could have been
spent for the disposal of cases in genuine
litigation.

15. It would not be out of place to
quote the observation of the Supreme Court
in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs.
State of West Bengal, reported in 2004 (3)
SCC 349 which is as under:-
5 All. Shailesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
339

"12. Public interest litigation is a
weapon which has to be used with great
care and circumspection and the judiciary
has to be extremely careful to see that
behind the beautiful veil of public interest
an ugly private malice, vested interest
and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is
to be used as an effective weapon in the
armory of law for delivering social justice
to the citizens. The attractive brand name
of public interest litigation should not be
used for suspicious products of mischief. It
should be aimed at redressal of genuine
public wrong or public injury and not
publicity oriented or founded on personal
vendetta. As indicated above, Court must
be careful to see that a body of persons or
member of public, who approaches the
court is acting bona fide and not for
personal gain or private motive or political
motivation or other oblique consideration.
The Court must not allow its process to be
abused for oblique considerations. Some
persons with vested interest indulge in the
pastime of meddling with judicial process
either by force of habit or from improper
motives. Often they are actuated by a desire
to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The
petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be
thrown out by rejection at the threshold,
and in appropriate cases with exemplary
costs.

14.....................In
such
case,
however, the Court cannot afford to be
liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see
that under the guise of redressing a public
grievance, it does not encroach upon the
sphere reserved by the Constitution to the
Executive and the Legislature. The Court
has to act ruthlessly while dealing with
imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome
interlopers
impersonating
as
publicspirited holy men. They masquerade as
crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in
the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they
have no interest of the public or even of
their own to protect."

16. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of BALCO Employees
Union (Regd) Vs. Union of India and
others, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 333,
observed as under:-

"78. While PIL initially was
invoked mostly in cases connected with the
relief to the people and the weaker sections
of the society and in areas where there was
violation of human rights under Article 21,
but with the passage of time, petitions have
been entertained in other spheres. Prof.
S.B. Sathe has summarised the extent of the
jurisdiction which has now been exercised
in following words :-

"PIL may, therefore, be described
as satisfying one or more of the following
parameters. These are not exclusive but
merely descriptive:

Where the concerns underlying a
petition are not individualist but are shared
widely by a large number of people
(bonded
labour,
undertrial
prisoners,
prison inmates).

Where
the
affected
persons
belong to the disadvantaged sections of
society (women, children, bonded labour,
unorganised labour etc.).

Where judicial law making is
necessary to avoid exploitation (intercountry adoption, the education of the
children of the prostitutes).

Where judicial intervention is
necessary for the protection of the sanctity
of democratic institutions(independence of
the judiciary, existence of grievances
redressal forums).

Where administrative decisions
related to development are harmful to the
environment and jeopardize people's to
natural resources such as air or water".
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

79. There is, in recent years, a
feeling which is not without any foundation
that Public Interest Litigation is now
tending
to
become
publicity
interest
litigation or private interest litigation and
has a tendency to be counter-productive.

80. PIL is not a pill or a panacea
for all wrongs. It was essentially meant to
protect basic human rights of the weak and
the disadvantaged and was a procedure
which was innovated where a public
spirited person files a petition in effect on
behalf of such persons who on account of
poverty, helplessness or economic and
social disabilities could not approach the
Court for relief. There have been, in recent
times, increasingly instances of abuse of
PIL. Therefore, there is a need to reemphasize the parameters within which PIL
can be resorted to by a Petitioner and
entertained by the Court. This aspect has
come up for consideration before this Court
and all we need to do is to recapitulate and
re-emphasize the same."

17. Again in the case of Janata Dal
(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined
as under:-

"109. It is thus clear that only a
person acting bona fide and having sufficient
interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone
have a locus standi and can approach the
Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and
needy, suffering from violation of their
fundamental rights, but not a person for
personal gain or private profit or political
motive
or
any
oblique
consideration.
Similarly, a vexatious petition under the
colour of PIL brought before the court for
vindicating any personal grievance, deserves
rejection at the threshold."

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Guruvayoor Devaswom
Managing Committee and another Vs.
C.K. Rajan and others reported in (2003)
7 SCC 546, took survey of various
decisions in the filed and summarized the
position in Para 50 of the judgment. One of
the principles which the Hon'ble Supreme
Court noted, is reproduced here in below:-

" 50(i). The Court in exercise of
powers under Article 32 and Article 226 of
the Constitution of India can entertain a
petition filed by any interested person in the
welfare of the people who is in a
disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a
position to knock the doors of the Court.

The Court is constitutionally
bound to protect the fundamental rights of
such disadvantaged people so as to direct
the State to fulfill its constitutional
promises. (See S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of
India [1981 (supp) SCC 87], People's
Union for Democratic Rights and Others
Vs. Union of India (1982) 2 SCC 494,
Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India
and Others (1984) 3 SCC 161 and Janata
Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others (1992)
4 SCC 305)

(ii) Issues of public importance,
enforcement of fundamental rights of large
number
of
public
vis-Ã
-vis
the
constitutional duties and functions of the
State, if raised, the Court treat a letter or a
telegram as a public interest litigation upon
relaxing procedural laws as also the law
relating to pleadings. (See Charles Sobraj
Vs. Supdt. Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi
(1978) 4 SCC 104 and Hussainara
Khatoon and Others Vs. Home Secretary,
State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81).

......

......

......

......

(xi) ordinarily, the High Court
should not entertain a writ petition by way
5 All. M/s Indo Gulf Fertilisers Lucknow Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow 341
of public interest litigation questioning the
constitutionality or validity of a statute or a
Statutory Rule."

19. In the case at hand, we find that
the U.P. Land Record Manual merely
provides the manner and procedure to
maintain the land records. Section 234(3)
of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides
that the Land Record Manual in force on
the date of commencement of the Revenue
Code, 2006, shall continue to remain in
force, to the extent they are not inconsistent
with the provisions of the Revenue Code,
2006 until amended rescinded or repealed
by any regulations made under this Section.

20. In the wake of the above, we are
not inclined to entertain the petition styled
as PIL particularly in view of the fact that
Section 234(3) of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, itself takes care of the inconsistency
of the Land Record Manual and upholds it
only to the extent it is not inconsistent with
the provisions of the Revenue Code, 2006.
We are of the opinion that this is not a fit
case where PIL jurisdiction should be
invoked or exercised.

21. Accordingly, we dismiss the
petition on account of non maintainability
by imposing cost assessed at Rs. 10,000/-
to be deposited with the High Court Legal
Services
Committee,
High
Court,
Allahabad, within 45 days from today,
failing which the same shall be recovered
from the petitioner as arrears of land
revenue.
----------

(2022)05ILR A341
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2022

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ Tax No. 161 of 2013

M/s Indo Gulf Fertilisers Lucknow
 ...Revisionist
Versus
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes U.P.
Lucknow ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Mudit Agarwal

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
C.S.C.

A. Tax Law - The controversy in the present
case pertains only to enhanced rate of nitrogen
component in DAP as distinguished from
enhanced rate of tax on nitrogen component.
The Agriculture department has enhanced only
the rate of nitrogen for the purpose of levying
tax and did not bring any change in the rate of
tax. However, the revisionist had collected the
enhanced rate of DAP and consequently is lible
tp pay tax on the enhanced rates which was so
collected by him. (Para 15)

Revision Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

M/s Ganesh International & anr. Vs Assistant
Commissioner & ors. 2001 (18) NTN DX 43
(distinguished)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. The controversy in the present
revision is with regard to the rate of Trade
Tax under the U. P. Trade Tax Act
applicable for the Nitrogen component in
the
Chemical
Fertilizer
DAP
(Di
Ammonium Phosphate). The impugned
Judgment of the Commercial Tax Tribunal,
Lucknow Bench while rejecting the appeal
preferred by the Revisionist held that the
Nitrogen content in the DAP was rightly
charged at the rate of Rs.1494.80 rather
than Rs.1381.30 per metric ton in light of