Locus standi is essential for the maintainability of a suit, and only those whose rights are affected have the standing to challenge legal proceedings.

1. This second appeal was admitted by this Court on 6.4.2013 by formulating the following substantial question of law for hearing:

“Whether the refusal of relief sought by the plaintiffs seeking declaration that notice dated 10th July, 2003 was illegal and void was appropriate in view of the decision of the court that the notice was issued without legal authority?”

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit and they along with late Marani Bala Debnath instituted Title Suit No. 8 of 2003 before the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Udaipur, South Tripura in the year 2003 seeking a decree for declaration that the impugned notice dated 20-7-2003 issued by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was illegal and void and a decree of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants and their agents from dispossessing them of the suit land measuring 1.67 acres morefully described in the Schedule appended to the plaint. The appellants claimed that they had been in continuous adverse possession of the suit land since 1958 so much so that their possession had now ripened into title. The appellants claimed that the suit land was and is a regular market, which is named as “Harakali Bazar” and is managed by a Committee and that they were running their respective businesses in the said market. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge in his judgment and decree dated 29.1.2010 on contest. Aggrieved by this, the appellants preferred Title Appeal No. 2/2010 before the learned District Judge, Udaipur, who by the judgment and decree dated 21.7.2010 dismissed the appeal. This then prompted the appellants to file this second appeal.

3. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Banik, the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. T.D. Majumder, the learned State counsel and Mr. P. Datta, the counsel for the private respondents, have been heard at some length. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the private respondents, has raised preliminary objection against the very maintainability of the suit on the ground that the appellants have no locus standi to institute the suit in the first place. According to the learned counsel, the suit land is a Government khas land as already decided by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 30 of 2003 and the same is encroached upon by the so-called tenants of the appellants upon whom notices were issued for eviction. As the appellants are not the owners of the suit land, none of their rights are in any manner affected. If at all, there is some semblance of right on the part of the noticees, it is these noticees who could have the locus standi to challenge the eviction notices. As the rights of the appellants are not even remotely affected, they cannot use the encroachers as a front to resist the eviction proceeding against the said noticees. The legal position that the Secretary, Tepania Gram Panchayat has not the authority to issue such eviction notices cannot detract from the fact that the appellants have no locus standi to institute the suit. There is thus force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the suit itself is not maintainable on the ground of lack of locus standi.

4. There is thus no question of law, much substantial question of law, involved in this appeal. There is, therefore, no merit in this second appeal, which is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment of the appellate Court upholding the dismissal of Title Suit No. 8 of 2003 by the trial court is, therefore, upheld though for a different reason. Transmit the LC record forthwith.