Allahabad High Court

LAL BIHARI YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: PRAKASH PADIA

Holding

The petitioner does not meet the criteria of an aggrieved person, rendering the writ petition non‑maintainable.

Summary

The petitioner, a complainant, sought a writ directing the Tehsildar of Madhiyahu Tehsil to decide a land revenue case under Section 67 of the Land Revenue Code, 2006 within the stipulated period. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to establish his locus standi or demonstrate that he is a "person aggrieved" under Article 226. Relying on precedents such as Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that only those whose legal rights are directly affected may maintain a writ. The Court further observed that the petitioner’s claim does not fall within the definition of an aggrieved party and that no public‑interest exception applied. Consequently, the writ petition was held to be non‑maintainable and was dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner qualifies as a "person aggrieved" for the purpose of filing a writ under Article 226.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the absence of locus standi.
Whether the public‑interest exception can be invoked to sustain the petition.

Legislation cited

Land Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67

Subjects

locus standi
aggrieved person
Article 226
writ petition
public interest litigation
Land Revenue Code
Section 67
maintainability
court jurisdiction

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 7858 of 2026

Lal Bihari Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Ashish Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.

Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. The petitioner is a complainant. The present writ petition has been filed by
him with the prayer to direct the Respondent No.2, Tehsildar, Tehsil
Madhiyahu, District Jaunpur to decide the Case No.RST/4385 of 2024,
Computerized Case No.T202414360604385, (Gram Sabha vs. Rajaram)
under Section 67 of Land Revenue Code, 2006 within stipulated period.

2. When a query was raised by the Court regarding the locus of the
petitioner, no satisfactory reply has been given.

3. Apart from the same nothing has been stated in the entire writ petition nor
any argument has been raised that how the petitioner fall within the
definition of 'person aggrieved'. Even otherwise from perusal of the entire
writ petition and after hearing counsel for the petitioner the Court is of the
opinion that petitioner does not fall within definition of "Aggrieved Person".

4. The existence of a right in favour of an aggrieved party furnishes the locus
standi to maintain a writ petition as held in Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
and others reported in (2001) 4 SCC 734 thus:

"2. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file
a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned
order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or
substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such
rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated
ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the
constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the
person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general
rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas
WRIC No. 7858 of 2026
2

-corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter
of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ
jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries caused
to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and
not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the
instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid
organisation which can take care of such cases. Even in cases
filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction
at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the
legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and
such person or determined class of persons is, by reason or
poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically
disadvantages position, unable to approach the court for relief."

5. Similarly in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Supreme Court emphasized
that existence of enforceable rights of aggrieved parties form the pre-
condition to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India vested in this Court:

"9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be
permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the
authority/court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved
persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal
injury can challenge the act/action/order, etc. in a court of law. A
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable
either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or
when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a
breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore,
there must be a judicially enforceable right available for
enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to.
The Court can, of course, enforce the performance of a statutory
duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a
person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has
a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such
right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of
the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary
jurisdiction that the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a
legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation
of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal
right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the
appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and
approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. [Vide State
WRIC No. 7858 of 2026
3

of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [AIR 1952 SC 12] , Saghir
Ahmad v. State of U.P. [AIR 1954 SC 728] , Calcutta Gas Co.
(Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044] ,
Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. [(1996) 5 SCC 460 : AIR 1996
SC 2736] and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare
Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar [(2009) 2 SCC 784].]

10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal
rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit
conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression,
"person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a
psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must,
therefore, necessarily be one whose right or interest has been
adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide Shanti Kumar R. Canji v.
Home Insurance Co. of New York [(1974) 2 SCC 387 : AIR 1974
SC 1719] and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [(1977) 3 SCC
592 : AIR 1977 SC 1361] .)

11. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai
[(2008) 5 SCC 217 : AIR 2008 SC 1289] , a similar view was
taken by this Court, observing that, if a person claiming relief is
not eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said to be a
person aggrieved regarding the election or the selection of other
persons."

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs.
Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed reported in 1976 (1) SCC 671 held
that a stranger who is not an aggrieved person cannot maintain a Writ for
either Certiorari or Mandamus. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid
judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

"50. While a Procrustean approach should be avoided, as a rule,
the Court should not interfere at the instance of a "stranger"
unless there are exceptional circumstances involving a grave
miscarriage of justice having an adverse impact on public
interests. Assuming that the appellant is a "stranger", and not a
busybody, then also there are no exceptional circumstances in the
present case which would justify the issue of a writ of certiorari
at his instance. On the contrary, the result of the exercise of these
discretionary powers, in his favour, will, on balance, be against
public policy. It will eliminate healthy competition in this
business which is so essential to raise commercial morality; it
will tend to perpetuate the appellant's monopoly of cinema
WRIC No. 7858 of 2026
4

business in the town; and above all, it will in effect, seriously
injure the fundamental rights of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, which
they have under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, to carry on
trade or business subject "reasonable restrictions imposed by
law".

7. In the case of Pyare Lal and others Vs. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation Mainpuri and others reported in 2005 ALL L. J. 1966 it
has been held in paragraph-7 that :-

"Dictionary meaning of word aggrieved is "having suffered loss
or injury. "According to the Black's Law Dictionary aggrieved
party/person is "one whose legal right is invaded by an act
complained of, or whose pecuniary interest is directing affected
by a decree or judgment. The word aggrieved refers to a
substantial grievance, a denial of some personal or property
right, or the imposition upon a party of a burden or obligation".
According to Corpus Juris Secundum volume IV 356 (1st edition)
a party or a person can be said to be aggrieved by a decision
only when it operates directly and injuriously upon his personal,
pecuniary or proprietary rights."

8. In this view of the matter, since petitioner does not fall within the
definition "aggrieved person" present writ petition filed on his behalf is not
maintainable.

9. The present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Prakash Padia,J.)
March 18, 2026
Swati

Digitally signed by :-
SWATI PATHAK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…