Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2941 (ALL)

Ram Laut v. State of U. P

2016-08-24

RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2016
JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. Notice on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel whereas Mr. Azad Khan, Advocate has accepted notice for opposite party no. 3. 2. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 4 and files vakalatnama, the same is taken on record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 04.03.2015 as well as 21.6.2016 whereby the proceedings initiated under Section 122-B U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act have been dropped and the revision preferred against the said order by the State Government has been dismissed by the Chief Revenue Officer/District Magistrate, Sultanpur. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner being one of the complainants was given a right of hearing in the proceedings initiated against opposite party no. 4 under Section 122-B U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. The opposite party no. 2, Assistant Collector, Kadipur, District Sultanpur, by the impugned order dated 04.03.2015, has dropped the proceedings initiated under Section 122-B U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. The State Government had preferred revision against the said order which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.6.2016. 6. Submission is that the petitioner had the opportunity to make his submission before the concerning authority in the proceedings under Section 122-B U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act and, as such, has a right to challenge the orders impugned. 7. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 4, on the other hand, has taken preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has no right to challenge the orders impugned as he is not an aggrieved person and moreover not a necessary and proper party. 8. Without entering into merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner being a complainant cannot be a necessary or proper party in the proceedings initiated under Section 122-B U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act or the revision preferred thereafter and on that basis file the instant writ petition. He cannot be said to be a 'person aggrieved'. 9. 8. Without entering into merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner being a complainant cannot be a necessary or proper party in the proceedings initiated under Section 122-B U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act or the revision preferred thereafter and on that basis file the instant writ petition. He cannot be said to be a 'person aggrieved'. 9. In case Gaon Sabha or the State feels aggrieved against the orders dated 21.6.2016 and 04.03.2015, they are at liberty to challenge the same before the competent Court, may be filing a writ petition, however, for that purpose the instant writ petition is not maintainable on behalf of a private individual, may be a complainant. 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.