JUDGMENT Anil Kumar,J. Heard Sri Ashvini Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as well as Sri Azad Khan, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and perused the record. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.03.2015 (Annexure No. 1) passed by respondent No. 3 and order dated 26.09.2016 (Annexure No. 2) passed by respondent No. 2. 3. Facts in brief of the present case are that respondent No. 5/Ram Karan was granted agricultural Patta on 05.09.1954 and petitioner moved an application for cancellation of the same as per the provisions as provided under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Reforms Act, 1950 before respondent No. 3 in the year 2014. By an order dated 09.03.2015 passed by respondent No. 3 had rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that as the pattas which has been granted in favour of respondent No. 5 is of agricultural purposes, so taking into consideration the said facts as well as ambit and scope of the provisions in respect of grant of patta as provided under the Act and the fact that the petitioner has moved an application after a belated stage after 62 years, so there is no justification and reasons to cancel the patta which was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision under Section 333 of the Act, dismissed by an order dated 26.09.2016. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that respondent No. 5 is not eligible for grant of patta in the present case, so the impugned orders passed in the present matter are contrary to law, liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. 6. It is relevant to mention herein that in the patta has been granted to the respondent No. 5 in the year and at the time of grant of patta the petitioner was not even born. 7. In respect to grant of patta, the eligibility criteria as provided in the eligibility clause in respect to grant of patta under Section 198 of the Act, the position which emerged out is that the appropriate authority is the best judge to consider and grant patta that under what suitable condition the patta should be granted. 8. 7. In respect to grant of patta, the eligibility criteria as provided in the eligibility clause in respect to grant of patta under Section 198 of the Act, the position which emerged out is that the appropriate authority is the best judge to consider and grant patta that under what suitable condition the patta should be granted. 8. In the present case, the appropriate authority after considering the relevant criteria as provided in the statute had granted the agricultural patta to the respondent No. 5 on 05.09.1954 and since then he is in possession of the land which is granted to him by way of patta. At a belated stage before expiry of 62 years on 11.11.2014, the petitioner moved an application for cancellation of the patta. 9. Thus, the core question to be considered and decided in the present case whether the petitioner falls within the definition of person aggrieved in order to enable him to challenge the grant of patta in favour of respondent No. 5 because petitioner is not person aggrieved as it is appropriate to go through the said provisions, which reads as under: - "Section 198(4) -- The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and the lease, if any". 10. From the bare reading of the said provisions, the position which emerged out that the Collector may of his own motion on an application of any person aggrieved initiate a proceeding in respect to grant of patta. 11. Thus, if any person who moves an application for cancellation of patta which is granted in favour of another person then he has to satisfy that whether he comes within the ambit and scope of person aggrieved in order to enable him to initiate the proceedings for cancellation of patta. 12. In the present case, the ground taken by the petitioner for initiating a proceeding under Section 198(4) of the Act that he is resident of the said village by virtue of the same, he does not come within the ambit and scope of the word "person aggrieved" rather he is a stranger person. 13. 12. In the present case, the ground taken by the petitioner for initiating a proceeding under Section 198(4) of the Act that he is resident of the said village by virtue of the same, he does not come within the ambit and scope of the word "person aggrieved" rather he is a stranger person. 13. 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 person. And person means 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. 14. 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. 15. Further, 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. 16. 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. 16. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai, AIR 2008 SC 1289 , has observed that if a person claiming relief is not eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved. 17. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot said to be a person aggrieved in the instant matter as at the time when the patta was granted in the year 1954 to respondent No. 5, petitioner was not even born. 18. So, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders under challenged in the present writ petition. 19. In the result, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.