Gram Sabha v. Smt. Santosh Kumari. In the said case, the proceedings have been initia

1. Heard Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the Tehsildar, Tehsil - Malihabad, District – Lucknow, be directed to decide Execution Application No. 1134 of 2025, arising out of Case No. 2109 of 2024 – Gram Sabha Vs. Smt. Santosh Kumari. In the said case, the proceedings have been initiated at the behest of the petitioner which is the complainant.

4. 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 petitioner, cognizance have been taken and proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are underway.

5. 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.

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

7. 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:- "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 2 A227 No. 5470 of 2025 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.

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.

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."

8. 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:- "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.

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,

11. In the case of R. v. London Country Keepers of the Peace of Justice, (1890) 25 QBD 357, the Court has held: "A person who cannot succeed in getting a conviction against another may be 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.

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 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. it does not

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 3 A227 No. 5470 of 2025

1. Heard Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the Tehsildar, Tehsil - Malihabad, District – Lucknow, be directed to decide Execution Application No. 1134 of 2025, arising out of Case No. 2109 of 2024 – Gram Sabha Vs. Smt. Santosh Kumari. In the said case, the proceedings have been initiated at the behest of the petitioner which is the complainant.

4. 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 petitioner, cognizance have been taken and proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are underway.

5. 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.

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

7. 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:- "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 2 A227 No. 5470 of 2025 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.

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.

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."

8. 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:- "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.

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,

11. In the case of R. v. London Country Keepers of the Peace of Justice, (1890) 25 QBD 357, the Court has held: "A person who cannot succeed in getting a conviction against another may be 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.

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 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. it does not

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 3 A227 No. 5470 of 2025