Dismissed

Nilesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2025A227/6388/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking time-bound compliance of a Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code decision was dismissed because the petitioner was merely one of several complainants with no legal right or protected interest affected, lacking locus standi under Articles 226/227. The Court nonetheless cautioned authorities against delay in compliance.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nilesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6388 of 2025

Nilesh Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Akhil Kumar Singh, Gyanendra Pratap Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 5

¶9

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Akhil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶11

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents for time bound compliance of order dated 30.11.2021 passed in Case No.03233/2019 in computerized case No.T-201904230303233 under Section 67 of U.P. Reenuce Coe in Gaon Sabha vs. Ram Achal by Tehsildar Manda, Ayodhya District Ayodhya, Tehsil Bikapur. In the said case, the proceedings have been initiated at the behest of the villagers in which the petitioner is also one of the complainants.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition in the nature of mandamus for a direction to the authority to decide the same matter expeditiously would not be maintainable at the behest of the petitioner who is only a complainant. It has further been stated that it is on the complaint of the villagers including the petitioner petitioner that cognizance have been taken and proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are underway.

¶13

Accordingly, this Court finds substance in the objections raised by learned Standing Counsel in as much as the status of the petitioner is of only a complainant and he cannot prosecute the said case as an interested party. Undoubtedly in case the petitioner is aggrieved then it was open for him to move appropriate proceedings for eviction of the illegal encroachers instead he has sought to move State machinery by filing a petition U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code. Once an application U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code is filed then it was upon the competent authority to consider and decide the same and pass appropriate orders where the petitioner as a complainant has no role to play.

¶14

Needless to say the authorities are competent to protect the Government land and will take all steps for the necessary compliance of the same.

¶15

A227 No. 6388 of 2025

¶16

¶17

In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs Collector reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 with regard to locus of a complainant has held as under:-

¶18

"58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, Ex-President was the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead the evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of an adversial litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lies. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eyes of law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria.

¶19

59. The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lies. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus stand to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a stat pro rationed valuntas reasons.

¶20

60. Under the garb of being necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lies, as the person wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party."

¶21

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P and Ors reported in (2010) 2 AWC 1878 (All) with respect to the locus of complainant has held has under:-

¶22

"9. As evident from narration of the facts given above, it is evident that the petitioner was one of the complainants in the complaint against the respondent No. 4 on 12.3.2008. The action has since been taken on the complaint so made by the petitioner and others against the respondent No. 4, and fine of Rs. 5,000 has been imposed.

¶23

10. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in the matter, and he is not an aggrieved person rather he is a person annoyed,

¶24

11. In the case of R. v. London Country Keepers of the Peace of Justice, (1890) 25 QBD 357, the Court has held:

¶25

"A person who cannot succeed in getting a conviction against another may be

¶26

A227 No. 6388 of 2025

¶27

¶28

annoyed by the said findings. He may also feel that what he thought to be a breach of law was wrongly held to be not a breach of law by the Magistrate. He thus may be said to be a person annoyed but not a person aggrieved, entitle to prefer an appeal against such order.

¶29

12. According to our opinion a "person aggrieved" means a person who is wrongly 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.

¶30

13. 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 satisfied 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. v. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 943 and Laxminarayan R. Bhattad and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2003) 5 SCC 413].

¶31

14. 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 v. Home Insurance Co. of New York AIR 1974 SC 1719 and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1361).

¶32

15. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desat v. Roshan Kumar Hazi Bashir Ahmad and Ors.: AIR 1976 SC 578 , the 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:

¶33

Such harm or loss is not wrongful in the eye of law because it does not result in injury to a legal right or a legally protected interest, the business competition causing it being a lawful activity. Judicially, harm of this description is called damnum 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

¶34

A227 No. 6388 of 2025

¶35

¶36

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 hang on. Therefore, he is not a "person aggrieved" to challenge the ground of the no objection certificate."

¶37

In Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg Co. Ltd. and Ors. MANU/SC/1151/1997MANU/SC/1151/1997 : (1997) 4 SCC 452, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again considered the meaning of "person aggrieved" and "locus of a rival Government undertaking" and held that a rival businessman cannot maintain a writ petition on the ground that its business prospects would be adversely affected.

¶38

16. The view taken by us that the petitioner is not a person aggrieved, thus he has no locus standi to file the present writ petition thereby challenging the order dated 16.3.2009 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaisinghpur, district Sultanpur is also supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Singh v. Commissioner Moradabad Division 1993 (1) AWC 601, where it was held that in an inquiry under Section 95(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the complainant who was UpPradhan could be a witness in. an inquiry but had no locus standi to approach this Court against the order of the State authorities, for the reasons that none of his personal statutory right are affected.

¶39

17. As such the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

¶40

From a perusal of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) as well as the Division Bench judgment in the case of Dharam Raj (supra) it clearly comes out that for a person to prefer the petition, he has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. Thus in order to prefer a writ, the person entitled would be one who has either been wrongly deprived of his entitlement which he is legally entitled to receive and it does not include any kind of disappointment or personal inconvenience. It is settled proposition of law that the person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the act or action or order by filing a writ petition inasmuch as the writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is maintainable for enforcing a statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by the petitioner that there is breach of statutory duty on the part of authorities. Thus, there must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to and not for the purpose of settlement of a personal

¶41

A227 No. 6388 of 2025

¶42

¶43

grievance.

¶44

The petitioner on the other hand has failed to indicate as to how he is concerned with the said land inasmuch as none of his rights are affected and from the perusal of the affidavit it is clear that no right or interest is vested upon the petitioner is adversely affected and therefore he is not a person "aggrieved" so as to entertain this petition under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶45

Considering the aforesaid, I do not find that the petitioner has a locus to maintain the present petition and consequently the petition at the behest of the petitioner is not maintainable, accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

¶46

However, dismissal of the present writ petition would not mean that the respondent authorities will continue to sit over the matter and not take any steps for compliance of the orders passed under Section 67 and 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Non compliance of a judicial or quasi judicial order is a serious matter and in case there is substantial delay in compliance, cognizance of such facts can be looked into by the administrative authority and proceedings initiated against the persons who are responsible for compliance of such orders.

¶47

October 31, 2025 RKM.

¶48

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶49

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

Nilesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nilesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lko. and Others

Vindeshwari Prasad and Another Vs Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda and Others

Sangam Lal and 2 Others Vs Addl. District Magistrate Judicial/ Deputy Director Consolidation, Amethi and 4 Others

Hari Prashad and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Anil Kumar Yadav and Others Vs Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Ram Ashish and 3 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao and Others