Only directly aggrieved parties have locus standi to challenge government orders affecting property rights.

1. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellants against an order of single Judge holding that the writ petitioners did not have locus standi to question the G. O. Ms. No. 501 (Revenue) dated 9-3-1983 which has been passed by the State Government under S.20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 .

2. On an application of the owner who owned excess vacant land, the impugned order as passed by the State Government under S.20 of the above, Urban Act granting exemption to the owner in respect of the excess land. The owner has no complaint against the order so passed in his favour. In fact he invited it and accepted it. Under S.20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 , the State Government has undoubted powers to pass such orders and to grant such exemption to an owner who holds vacant lands in excess of ceiling limit. If the State Government in exercise of that power had issued the impugned G. O. and granted exemption to the owners subject to certain conditions the owner of course can complain to this Court on valid grounds. When legal questions of ultra vires are raised against a statutory authority by an aggrieved party courts are duty bound to entertain the matter and adjudicate upon the dispute. ( See Queen V. Burah , 1879 (5) Ind App 178.)

3. But the question is, can a third party challenge the validity of such an order of statutory exemption while the owner: welcomes, accepts and acquiesces in that. order of the Government which is in his favour. That is the question that arises in this writ appeal. This writ petition has been filed by such third parties challenging the validity of that order but without in any way being hurt by that order. The writ petitioners have no rights or interests in that property. The writ petition can at best be described as an attempt to enforce Rule of Law. The question is whether judicial process can be let loose for such a purpose? The learned single Judge held that the petitioners have no locus standi to call in question the exemption order and to file the writ petition. The appellate Bench which admitted this writ appeal against that order of the single Judge confined the scope of the appeal only to question of locus standi of the writ petitioners. We confine our inquiry into the question whether the appellants have locus standi to challenge the validity of the order passed by the Government under S.20 of the Urban Ceiling Act which is accepted by the owner.

4. According to the notions of traditional law the appellants should clearly be turned out of Court. A court before it permits a party to agitate any legal question before it must be satisfied that the party agitating such legal question is ventilating a grievance relating to some legal injury suffered by that party. Some say that such an injury must not be common with the rest of humanity. It must be unique to that party alone. Law will not permit A to cry for B's injury. Law's dictum is mind your own business. Otherwise power to manage the affairs of others come to be exercised by busy bodies. In order words, such a party must be found by the Court to have been subjected to some recognised legal injury. The traditional justification for this is two fold Locus standi is part of the separation of powers. While law is for all, adjudication can only be between parties. Court powers are State powers and its orders are enforced by public force. Such enforcement will restrict or enlarge the freedoms of others. Clearly judicial process is not intended to deal with some one's rights except at its instance. Only legislation can undertake such task