The court ruled that a person must demonstrate a legal grievance to qualify as 'aggrieved' for a writ petition under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, emphasizing enforceable rights must exist.

JUDGMENT :

PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3, Shri Hari Narayan Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4 and Shri Vimal Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.5 & 6 and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia with the following prayers:-

"a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the respondent no.2/Additional Commissioner Judicial 1st Kanpur, Division Kanpur in Revision No.3421 of 2024 (Computerized Case No.C20240300003421) (Sughar Singh Vs. Indrapal and others) under Section 333 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 as well as judgment and order dated 8.10.2024 passed by the respondent no.3/Additional District Magistrate Finance and Revenue/Additional Collector Kannauj in case no.1176 of 2018 (Computerized Case No.D201803390001176 (Sughar Singh Vs. Land Management Committee and others) under section 198(4) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950."

3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the plot no.1560M area 0.121 hectare situated in village Ummedpurwa Mauza Anaugi, Pargana & Tehsil & District Kannauj recorded in revenue record as Banzar land. It is stated in paragraph-7 of the writ petition that Respondent Nos.5 & 6 are not eligible to be allotted agricultural lease over the said plot having sufficient agricultural land. Petitioner is still in possession over the plot in question from his ancestral period and during the course of the allotment of agricultural lease in favour of the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 dated 04.01.2014, such land was not vacant because the land of the petitioner i.e., plot no.1562 and 1563 is situated adjacent to the plot no.1560 and the petitioner has constructed house over the plot no.1560 and installed tube-well over it for irrigation of his agricultural land and some trees are also grown over it.

4. It is argued that since at the time of allotment the plot in question was not vacant, the same should not be allotted in favour of the private respondents.

5. In this view of the matter, after the allotment was made in favour of the private-respondents on 04.01.2014, suit for cancellation of lease under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed by the petitioner in the court of District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), District Kannauj. The said suit was dismissed by the Respondent No.3 namely Additional District Magistrate Finance and Revenue/Additional Collector Kannauj vide order dated 08.10.2024.

6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, statutory revision as provided under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 was filed by the petitioner before the Respondent No.2 namely Additional Commissioner Judicial Ist Kanpur Division Kanpur which was numbered as Case No.3421 of 2024. The aforesaid revision was also dismissed by the Respondent No.2 vide order dated 16.10.2024. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

7. It is argued that the petitioner is in possession over the land in question which was allotted in favour of the private-respondents in the year 2014. When a query was raised by the Court that whether any legal allotment by any competent authority was ever made in favour of the petitioner or at any point of time by the revenue authorities, it is very fairly argued that at no point of time the land in question was allotted in favour of the petitioner.

8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. A complete procedure for cancellation