The main legal point established in the judgment is that only a person suffering legal injury can challenge an act, and the existence of a judicially enforceable right is a condition precedent to invoke the writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.1.2007 by which while dismissing the writ petition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, certain directions have been issued to the Statutory Authority to take action against certain persons including the Appellant for violating the provisions of law.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that one Sanatan Kalo had agricultural lands. He had three sons, one of them was Somnath. Two sons of said Somnath namely, Kanahei and Puma had transferred their share in favour of one Hardugan Tete vide Registered Sale Deed dated 4.4.1969 for a consideration and he was put in possession. The transfer and the transferee belonged to the Scheduled Tribes. The Transferee Hardugan Tete sold the land by registered sale deed dated 7.9.1971 for a consideration in favour of Janmajoy Purohit after taking permission of the competent authority under the Statute i.e. Section 3(2) of Regulation 2 of 1956 by filing Misc. Case No. 234 of 1970. He had been put in possession. However, after a lapse of long period, the descendants of another son of Sanatan Kalo challenged the transfer on the ground that the land had been transferred by a person of Scheduled Tribe in favour of a non-Scheduled Tribe person and therefore there was violation of law.

3. That one Durga Pr. Panda had encroached a portion of the case land without having any right, thus the Appellant filed Title Suit No. 44 of 1990 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sundargarh. The same was decreed in favour of the Appellant. The said Durga Pr. Panda preferred Appeal before the learned District Judge, Sundargarh vide Title Appeal No. 35 of 1993 which was also dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the said Durga Pro Panda preferred Second Appeal before this Court vide Second Appeal No. 236 of 1997 which is pending for hearing.

4. That during pendency of the said Civil Suit the said Durga Pr. Panda along with his brother instigated late Raghunath Kalo, father of the Respondent No. 1 to file a petition u/s 3(2) of Regulation 2 of 56 for restoration of the case land in their favour vide Misc. Case No. 22 of 1990. During pendency of the said Misc. Case, the said Raghunath Kalo died. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 being the legal heir of said Raghunath Kalo filed a petition supported by an affidavit with his brother to drop the case on the ground that the case land belonged to Kanhei Kalo and Puma Kalo who had sold to Hardugan Tete, and afterwords the Transferee, Hardugan Tete, sold the same to the Appellant after due permission and payment of consideration by the Registered sale deed.

5. Respondent No. 5 vide order dated 29.05.1999 without issuing any order to the present Appellant allowed the case.

6. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the Appellant filed an appeal No. 19/1999 which was allowed observing that the Appellant legally purchased the said land from Hardugan Tete after obtaining permission from the competent authority vide judgment and order dated 23.3.2000. The said order was challenged in a writ petition which has been dismissed giving the aforesaid direction. Hence this appeal.

7. Mr. H. Mishra, Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that No. direction could have been issued by the learned Single Judge adversely affecting the Appellant without giving opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. More so, as the writ petition was dismissed and the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not filed any appeal against that judgment and order, they could not be permitted to take benefit of direction given by the learned Single Judge which adversely affects the present Appellant. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not have any locus standi as they could not claim themselves to be the "person aggrieved" for the simple reason that land of two co-sharers had been sold in favour of Hardugan Tete and even i