Sant Kumar v. State and others), under Section

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 2 A227 No. 5219 of 2025 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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. 3 A227 No. 5219 of 2025

9. 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 private- respondent, hence, why the State has not been impleaded as a party in the instant petition.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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. October 27, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 2 A227 No. 5219 of 2025 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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. 3 A227 No. 5219 of 2025

9. 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 private- respondent, hence, why the State has not been impleaded as a party in the instant petition.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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. October 27, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench