Dismissed¶25

Surya Nath Verma v. Sant Kumar

Allahabad HC27 Oct 2025A227/5219/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 petition dismissed as misconceived; impleadment application rejected in statutory appeal under Section 9, U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972; locus standi of petitioner who initiated proceedings; necessary and proper party; role of informant 'sublimes' once eviction proceedings commence; Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (2013) 4 SCC 465 distinguished on PIL locus dilution; Pradeep Kumar WRIT-C No.12423 of 2018 referred; State not impleaded; no credentials on record; Surya Nath Verma v. Sant Kumar; Jaspreet Singh, J.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; decided October 27, 2025.

What did the court decide?

None ¶25

Surya Nath Verma Vs Sant Kumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the instant Article 227 petition is maintainable at the behest of the petitioner (locus standi), who was not a party to the pending appeal. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Once the proceedings under the Act of 1972 were initiated at the petitioner's behest, the petitioner's role sublimed; the matter became contentious and adversarial between the State and the unauthorized occupant.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Although the proposition in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (dilution of locus standi in public interest matters where the actual aggrieved person cannot approach the Court) cannot be disputed, it is not applicable to the instant case.

¶23

Key takeaways

There are no clear facts establishing the petitioner's right to seek and maintain the petition, especially when the State (a contesting party in the underlying proceedings) has not been impleaded in the instant petition and the private-respondent is prosecuting his appeal.ratio¶24
Even if the petition is treated as a public interest petition, there is nothing on record to indicate the petitioner's credentials; the petition is completely misconceived at the petitioner's behest and is dismissed.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Matters Under Article 227 No. 5219 of 2025 — Surya Nath Verma v. Sant Kumar, decided 27.10.2025 (Jaspreet Singh, J.). The petitioner assailed the order dated 15.07.2025 of the Additional District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Appeal No.46 of 2022 under Section 9 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, rejecting his application for impleadment. Relying on Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan, (2013) 4 SCC 465 and a Coordinate Bench decision (WRIT-C No.12423 of 2018, Pradeep Kumar), he contended his locus standi as initiator of the proceedings and a necessary/proper party. The Court held that once the Section 9 proceedings were initiated at his behest his role 'sublimed' and the matter became adversarial between the State and the unauthorized occupant; the PIL-based dilution of locus standi in Ayaaubkhan was distinguished as inapplicable; with the State not impleaded in the petition and no record of the petitioner's credentials, the petition was completely misconceived and was dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5219 of 2025

Surya Nath Verma

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Sant Kumar	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Brajesh Kumar Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:

¶7

Court No. - 6

¶8

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard Shri Brajesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has filed a supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶10

The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 15.07.2025, whereby the Additional District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Appeal No.46 of 2022 (Sant Kumar v. State and others), under Section 9 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act of 1972') has dismissed the application of the petitioner for impleadment.

¶11

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the private-respondent is an unauthorized occupation of the land in question. The petitioner had earlier filed a petition seeking indulgence of the writ Court to get the proceedings initiated against the private-respondent. It is in furtherance thereof that the petitioner was permitted to participate in the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act of 1972.

¶12

It is urged that the once the Prescribed Authority had decided the matter against the private-respondent on 08.07.2022, the same was put to challenge in a statutory appeal bearing Appeal No.46 of 2022. Since, the private-respondent had not impleaded the petitioner, hence, the petitioner moved an application for impleadment, which came to be rejected. The petitioner thereafter also moved an application for review, which was also rejected. Thereafter, the instant petition has been filed an it has been

¶13

A227 No. 5219 of 2025

¶14

¶15

urged that since the proceedings under the Act of 1972 has been initiated at the behest of the petitioner, hence, the petitioner was both a necessary and proper party and the Appellate Court erroneously rejected the application for impleadment which deserves to be allowed.

¶16

A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the instant petition is maintainable at his behest and in reply thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013) 4 SCC 465 and reference has been made to Paragraphs 22 and 23 of the said report to submit that in matters relating to public interest litigation, the issue of locus-standi is diluted and even where the petitioner may not have a direct interest, yet in exceptional circumstances coupled with the fact that a person aggrieved, who is unable to approach the Court, a person can approach the Court in a public interest litigation.

¶17

It is further stated that the said decision of the Apex Court has been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WRIT-C No.12423 of 2018 (Pradeep Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 10 Others) , decided on 27.10.2018, whereby the right of a person in public interest has been considered and it has been held that such a person would have the right to approach the Court and thus in light of the aforesaid settled propositions, the instant petition is maintainable at the behest of the petitioner.

¶18

The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and is unable to persuade itself to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner for more than one reasons.

¶19

At the outset, it may be noticed that the proceedings were initiated, at the behest of the petitioner, under the Act of 1972. Insofar as the locus of the petitioner is concerned, he has brought to the notice of the Court regarding the alleged illegal occupation of the public utility land which was taken note by the authority and the proceedings were initiated. Once, the proceedings were initiated, the role of the petitioner sublimed. The matter become contentious and advisorial insofar as the State and the unauthorized occupant is concerned.

¶20

A227 No. 5219 of 2025

¶21

¶22

The record indicates that after the order of eviction was passed, the same is the subject matter of an appeal which is still pending. The person, who is said to be an unauthorized occupant i.e. the private-respondent is not before the Court. It has also not been indicated that since the parties who were contesting the proceedings was the State and the privaterespondent, hence, why the State has not been impleaded as a party in the instant petition.

¶23

This Court further finds that insofar as the decision of the Apex Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra) regarding the proposition is concerned, cannot be disputed, but the applicability of the said ratio to the instant case is doubtful for the reason that even if the observations of the Apex Court are seen in Paragraph-23 in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra), it would reveal that the matter related to a public interest where the Court held that if the actual aggrieved person because of ignorance, illiteracy, poverty and inarticulation is unable to approach the Court then a person may be permitted to approach the Court, however, the same is not applicable in the instant case.

¶24

A Coordinate Bench of this Court has followed the same propositions in Pradeep Kumar (supra), however, there are no clear fact as to how the present petitioner would have a right to seek and maintain the petition especially when the State is not before this Court, who was a party to the proceedings and the aggrieved party i.e. the private-respondent is contesting his appeal before the appellate Court nor, as noticed above.

¶25

In such circumstances, the proposition as sought to be canvased by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable and thus the petition is misconceived at the behest of the petitioner especially even if the petition is to be treated as a public interest, there is nothing on record to indicate the credentials of the petitioner. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that the petition is completely misconceived and is accordingly dismissed .

¶26

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶27

October 27, 2025

¶28

Rakesh/-

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surya Nath Verma v. Sant Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya Nath Verma v. Sant Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harinam Singh and 4 Others Vs Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Kumar Yadav Vs Board of Revenue, Lucknow Division, Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Babu Ram Vs District Magistrate, Sultanpur and Another

Hari Shankar Vs Sardar Avtar Singh

The Commissioner Commercial Tax Lucknow Vs M/S Eveready Industries India Ltd.

M/s Amaninder Singh Bedi Security Agency, Noida vs Vice Chancellor, through its registrar, Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University (B.B.a.U.)