A statutory authority with power to act within a specified area for the development of that area, which is one of the governmental functions ordinarily entrusted to a municipality or a corporation by a statute, with power to control and manage its own fund, is a local authority within the meaning of the second proviso to Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of M. N. Roy J. whereby the Rule Nisi obtained by the appellant on its application under Article 226 of the Constitution was discharged.

( 2 ) THE appellant who is described as "12, I. C. Bose Road, Tenants' Association" challenged a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was preceded by a notification under Section 4 of the said Act. The notification under Section 4 was published on Dec. 2, 1974. It was inter alia stated therein that the lands comprised in the premises Nos. 12 and 16. I. C. Bose Road were likely to be nreded for public purpose, namely, for the construction of the northern approach road in connection with the re-construction of the Buckland Bridge at Howrah at the expenses of the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the C. M. D. A. ). After hearing the objections filed by the interested persons including the tenants of the said premises under Section 5-A of the said Act. the declaration under Section 6 was published on December 29, 1975. In the declaration also it was stated that the acquisition would be made at the expenses of the C. m. D. A.

( 3 ) IT was contended by the appellant in the writ petition that the C. M. D. A. was neither a local authority nor a company, noi the money that would be spent by it for the acquisition of the lands comprised in the said premises formed part of the public revenues of the State Government as contemplated by the second proviso to Section 6 (2) of the said Act and accordingly, the acquisition sought to be made by the declaration under Section 6 was illegal, inoperative and void. At the hearing of the Rule Nisi, two preliminary objections were taken on behalf of the respondents, namely, that the appellant had no locus standi to maintain a writ petition challenging the declaration under Section 6 and that a majority of ths members of the appellant having filed claims under Section 9 of the said Act, they had waived their right to call in question the legality of the acquisition. The learned Judge upheld the preliminary objections of the respondents and held that the appellant had no locus standi to maintain a writ petition and that as most of its members filed claims for compensation under Section 9, they had forfeited their right to challenge the acquisition. He also held that the C. M. D. A. was a local authority within the meaning of the second proviso to Section 6 (2) of the said Act read with Section 3 (31) of the General Clauses Act. Upon the said findings, he discharged the Rule and hence this appeal.

( 4 ) WE may first of all consider the locus standi of the appellant to maintain a writ petition. After the notification under Section 4 was published on December 2, 1974, the tenants of the said premises formed themselves into an Association which is the appellant before us. The appellant has been registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 and its registered office is at 12, I. C. Bose Road Howrah. Article 226 provides for remedy for the infringement of a fundamental or legal right of a person. The condition precedent to the granting of any relief under Article 226 is the existence of a fundamental or legal right of a person and the infringement of such right. The right which is the foundation of an application under Article 226 is a personal and individual right. The legal right may be a statutory right or a right recognised by the law. The principles of law in this regard have been recently restated by the Supreme Court in Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana. In that case, the Supreme Court has observed that it is elementary that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by some one who ha