High Court Holds Writ Not Maintainable Where Petitioner Is Not a "Person Aggrieved" in Land Lease Cancellation Dispute

A single-judge bench of Justice Prakash Padia heard a writ petition challenging orders arising from cancellation and revision proceedings under Section 198(4) and Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 08.10.2024 of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Kannauj and the revision order dated 16.10.2024 of the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kanpur, which had dismissed his challenge to an agricultural lease granted in 2014.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition for want of locus standi, holding that the petitioner did not qualify as a "person aggrieved" entitled to invoke proceedings under Section 198(4). The court observed that Section 198(4) permitted the Collector to act "of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved" to inquire into and cancel irregular allotments, and emphasised the settled principle that only one who has suffered a legal grievance may challenge such allotment. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The 'person aggrieved' means a person who is wrongfully 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. ... There must be injuria or a legal grievance, as the law can appreciate and not a stat pro ratione valuntas reasons." The judgment relied on precedents including Munshi v. State of U.P., Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P., Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar to reiterate that a stranger cannot maintain certiorari or mandamus absent exceptional circumstances.

Background
The dispute concerned plot No.1560M (0.121 hectare) in village Ummedpurwa, Mauza Anaugi, Pargana & Tehsil & District Kannauj, recorded in revenue records as banzar land. The petitioner asserted ancestral possession, alleging that he had constructed a house, installed a tube-well and grown trees on adjacent plots and the subject parcel. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 received an agricultural lease dated 04.01.2014. The petitioner contended that the land was not vacant at the time of allotment and that the grantees lacked eligibility, and therefore sought cancellation under Section 198(4).

Proceedings under Section 198(4) were initiated by the petitioner before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Kannauj; the application was dismissed by order dated 08.10.2024. The petitioner pursued statutory revision under Section 333 before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) I, Kanpur Division, which was dismissed on 16.10.2024. He then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 challenging both orders.

On hearing, the petitioner conceded that no legal allotment in his favour ever existed in the revenue records. The court examined the statutory scheme and cited authoritative tests for locus — that a "person aggrieved" must have suffered a legal injury or be adversely affected in a legal sense — and applied the line of Supreme Court and High Court authorities which limit writ relief to those with enforceable legal rights. Finding that the petitioner did not establish an enforceable legal right or that he suffered legal injury by the allotment, the High Court held the writ not maintainable and dismissed the petition. The court recorded no order as to costs.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT - C No. - 44707 of 2025
Case Title: Sughar Singh Versus State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Girish Chandra Maurya, Omraj Singh
For the Respondent(s): C.S.C., Hari Narayan Singh, Vimal Kumar