A complaint under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Act can only be initiated by a 'person aggrieved' who has suffered a legal injury, emphasizing that mere residency does not confer such status.

JUDGMENT :

PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. Heard Shri Nipun Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Abhijit Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3/Land Management Committee and Shri Vinod Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private-respondents.

2. Pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties, hence with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is decided at the admission stage itself.

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners inter-alia with the following prayers-

"i. Issue an order, direction, or writ in the nature of the certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 03-10-2016 passed by the respondent no. 1 herein ie Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in revision no. 125/2015-15 Satish and others Vs. Jaipal and others, and revision no 126/2015-15 Harbhajan and others Vs. Ramgopal and others, and revision no. 117/2015-15 Ikram and others Vs Ravindra and others and in Revision no 116/2015-15 Kanwal Singh and others Vs. Raghuraj and others u/s 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (Annexure no.10 to the writ petition) and judgment and order dated 30-06-2016 passed by the respondent no. 2 herein i.e. Additional Collector/ADM (Administration), Bulandshahar in case no 17/2013 Brahm Singh and others Vs. Kanwal Singh and others, and in case no. 21/2013 Ravindra Singh and others Vs. Harbhajan Singh and others U/s 198(4) of U.P.ZA. and L.R. Act 1950 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition) whereby and whereunder the agricultural leases as executed in favour of petitioners herein has been determined/cancelled u/s 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act on wholly erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.

ii. Issue an appropriate order or direction against the res. no. 1 and 2 herein not to dispossess the petitioners herein concerning the leased land in pursuance of judgment and order dated 03-10-2016 passed by the respondent no 1 herein ie. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in revision no. 125/2015-15 Satish and others Vs. Jaipal and others, and revision no. 126/2015-15 Harbhajan and others Vs. Ramgopal and others, and revision no. 117/2015-15 Ikram and others Vs. Ravindra and others and Revision no. 116/2015-15 Kanwal Singh and others Vs. Raghuraj and others u/s 198(4) of U.P.ZA. and L.R. Act (Annexure no.10 to the writ petition) and judgment and order dated 30- 06-2016 passed by the respondent no. 2 herein i.e. Additional Collector/ADM (Administration), Bulandshahar in case no. 17/2013 Brahm Singh and others Vs. Kanwal Singh and others, and in case no. 21/2013 Ravindra Singh and others Vs. Harbhajan Singh and others U/s 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act 1950 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition)."

4. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the Land Management Committee of the Gaon Sabha namely Biraudi Tajpur Tehsil Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar passed a unanimous resolution on 20-04-1994, whereby an agricultural lease was granted in favour of various persons including the present petitioners. The aforesaid resolution was duly approved by the then Deputy Collector/Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 12-5-1994. The private respondents namely Respondents Nos. 4 to 33 moved an application dated 29-06-1994 under sub section (4) of Section 198 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as "Act 1950"), before the Collector, Buland