Only parties aggrieved by a judgment, with rights adversely affected, can appeal, and mere psychological injury is insufficient for standing.

ORDER :

1. This writ appeal under Section 2 of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Ahdiniyam, 2005 has been filed against the orders dated 29.08.2023 and 04.03.2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17864/2022.

2. It is the case of the appellant that the learned Single Judge by order dated 29.08.2023 had directed for demarcation of Khasra No.2138/1 and 2139 through the revenue authorities through TSM machine.

3. The demarcation was done on 27.09.2023. However, no notice was given to the petitioner prior thereto. In the demarcation done on 23.09.2023, it was found that the petitioner has encroached upon the some part of Khasra No.2139 by constructing a shop. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge by order dated 04.03.2024 has held that seven encroachers have been identified and let all the encroachment be removed within seven days, if there is no legal impediment in the same.

4. Challenging the aforesaid both the orders, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that the appellant was not served with a notice prior to the demarcation done on 27.09.2023. Furthermore, the petitioner is the owner of Khasra No.1803/2/3/1 but it is fairly conceded that the petitioner has no title over Khasra No.2139 or 2138/1, situated in Chandiya, District Umaria. It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed an application for intervention in W.P.No.17864/2022, but the said application “has not been considered in arbitrary manner”. It is further submitted that now the petitioner has received a notice dated 05.03.2024 from the Tahsildar, Tehsil Chandiya District, Umaria to the effect that the petitioner should remove his encroachment from Khasra No. 2139 within a period of two days, failing which, coercive steps shall be taken for removal of encroachment.

5. Per Contra, the application is vehemently opposed by counsel for the respondents. It is submitted that it is incorrect to say that the intervention application filed by the appellant was never considered by the writ Court. In fact, the intervention application was taken up for consideration by the writ Court on 07.03.2024 and on the same day, the said application has been rejected. It is further submitted that the appellant has not claimed his title over Khasara No.2138 and 2139 and therefore, if the authorities have issued notice to remove the encroachment over the said khasra, then it cannot be said that the appellant is an aggrieved party.

6. Faced with such a situation, it is submitted by counsel for the appellant that the present appeal was filed on 07.03.2024 at 7:30 in the evening. It is true that the arguments on his application for intervention were heard by the learned Single Judge on 07.03.2024 and the order was also dictated in the open Court, but since the order was not uploaded till 7:30 in the evening, therefore, the appellant has not referred the said order in the memo of appeal. However, counsel for the appellant was requested to explain the meaning of his ground that the application for intervention filed by the appellant has not been considered in arbitrary manner Accordingly, counsel for the appellant was requested to explain the meaning of word ‘arbitrary manner’.

7. It is fairly conceded by counsel for the appellant that the said word was used without any intention behind it. However, it was submitted that although the order dated 07.03.2024 was dictated in open Court but he could not hear that his application has been rejected.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. The factual aspect is that the petitioner was not a party in the W.P.No.17864/2022. He had also filed an applicatio