Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27959 of 2021

Petitioner :- Munnu Ram

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Amresh Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Amresh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner as well

as learned Standing Counsel.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of

mandamus thereby commanding the State respondent authorities to

comply the order passed by Tahsildar Sadar, District Mau dated

27.08.2020 in proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code and

evict the respondent No. 4 from the land of pond.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that by means of

the order dated 27.08.2020, the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P.

Revenue Code was concluded by the Tehsildar and it was determined that

the respondent No. 4 has constructed a house on a public land and

consequently he is being declared to be unauthorized occupation on the

government land and order of eviction has been passed.

4. Learned counsel for the in the present writ petition has sought for a

direction to the State authorities to comply the order passed by Tahsildar

Sadar, District Mau dated 27.08.2020 in proceeding under Section 67 of

U.P. Revenue Code and evict the respondent NO. 4 from the land of pond.

5. Learned Standing counsel at the very outset submitted that petitioner is

a stranger to the said proceedings as the present proceedings were not

initiated at his behest nor he was party before the Tehsildar concerned and

consequently he is not a person aggrieved and hence he does not have any

locus to maintain the present writ petition.

6. I have considered the arguments of the parties and perused the record.

The order dated 27.08.2020 clearly indicates that the said proceedings

were initiated on the basis of the report of the Lekhpal dated 01.01.2020

and on the basis of the said report proceedings were initiated and notices

were issued to the respondent No. 4 and subsequently the said

proceedings were culminated by passing of the order dated 27.08.2020

declaring the respondent No. 4 to be in unauthorized possession of the

government land and order for eviction has been passed.

7. Needless to say the authorities are competent to protect the government

land and will take all steps necessary compliance of the same.

8. In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant

Bhoir Vs Collector reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 with regard to locus of

a complainant has held as under:-

"58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, Ex-President was the

complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead the evidence as a witness. He

could not claim the status of an adversial litigant. The complainant cannot

be the party to the lies. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising

out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of

law. Thus, a person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the

act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be

wrongful in the eyes of law because it may not result in injury to a legal

right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm

of this description is called damnum sine injuria

59. The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or

denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected

interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he

cannot be heard as a party in a lies. A fanciful or sentimental grievance

may not be sufficient to confer a locus stand to sue upon the individual.

There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and

not a stat pro rationed valuntas reasons

60. Under the garb of being necessary party, a person cannot be permitted

to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote

interest cannot be permitted to become a party in th