Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.
Ram Laut - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 19778 (M/S) of 2016
Decided On : 24-08-2016
Aggrieved Person - Jurisdictional Challenge - The court held that a private individual, even if a complainant, cannot be considered a necessary or proper party in proceedings initiated under Section 122-B U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act or the revision preferred thereafter. The court emphasized that the petitioner cannot be said to be a 'person aggrieved' and dismissed the writ petition on this basis.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged orders dropping proceedings initiated under Section 122-B U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act and the dismissal of the revision by the State Government. The petitioner, a complainant, claimed the right to challenge the orders as he had the opportunity to make submissions in the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, being a private individual and not a necessary or proper party, cannot be considered an aggrieved person in the proceedings. The court dismissed the writ petition on this basis without entering into the merits of the case.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petition, with the opposing party arguing that the petitioner had no right to challenge the orders as he was not an aggrieved person and not a necessary and proper party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation that a private individual, even if a complainant, cannot be considered a necessary or proper party in the proceedings initiated under Section 122-B U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act or the revision preferred thereafter.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds that the petitioner, as a private individual, could not be considered a 'person aggrieved' and therefore had no right to challenge the orders.
Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Notice on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel whereas Mr. Azad Khan, Advocate has accepted notice for opposite party no. 3.
2. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 4 and files vakalatnama, the same is taken on record.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. The writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 04.03.2015 as well as 21.6.2016 whereby the proceedings initiated under Section 122-B U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act have been dropped and the revision preferred against the said order by the State Government has been dismissed by the Chief Revenue Officer/District Magistrate, Sultanpur.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner being one of the complainants was given a right of hearing in the proceedings initiated against opposite party no. 4 under Section 122-B U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. The opposite party no. 2, Assistant Collector, Kadipur, District Sultanpur, by the impugned order dated 04.03.2015, has dropped the proceedings initiated under Section 122-B U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. The State Government had preferred revision against the said order which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.6.2016.
6. Submission is that the petitioner had the opportunity to make his submission before the concerning authority in the proceedings under Section 122-B U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act and, as such, has a right to challenge the orders impugned.
7. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 4, on the other hand, has taken preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has no right to challenge the orders impugned as he is not an aggrieved person and moreover not a necessary and proper party.
8. Without entering into merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner being a complainant cannot be a necessary or proper party in the proceedings initiated under Section 122-B U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act or the revision preferred thereafter and on that basis file the instant writ petition. He cannot be said to be a 'person aggrieved'.
9. In case Gaon Sabha or the State feels aggrieved against the orders dated 21.6.2016 and 04.03.2015, they are at liberty to challenge the same before the competent Court, may be filing a writ petition, however, for that purpose the instant writ petition is not maintainable on behalf of a private individual, may be a complainant.
10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
