JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, C.J. 1. The present writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.03.2022 in WP No. 19079 of 2017. Briefly stated the material facts are as under: 2. The petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein was allotted a piece of land measuring Acs.3.43 cents in different survey numbers in Konanki Village, Prakasam District vide order dated 16.06.2011. The name of the petitioner was entered into record of rights and pattadar passbook and title deed were also issued in his favour. However, based upon certain complaints written by Shaik Mehboob Basha an Advocate, to the Joint Collector, Prakasam District exercised revisional powers conferred under BSO 15(18)(1) and passed an order dated 02.05.2017, cancelling the assignment granted to the petitioner. The main ground on which the Joint Collector, Prakasam District passed the order impugned in the writ petition was that the assignment was made without the approval of the assignment committee which was thus not in accordance with law. 3. The petitioner/respondent No.1 herein challenged the order impugned passed by the Joint Collector, Prakasam District in Writ Petition No. 19079 of 2017. It was allowed by virtue of judgment and order impugned wherein it was held that the grounds mentioned in the show-cause notice served upon the petitioner pertained to ineligibility of the petitioner for grant of Patta, whereas, the order passed by respondent No.3 in writ petition contained different grounds, which was impermissible in the light of the ration of judgments of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951:INSC:52 : AIR 1952 SC 16 ; Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, 1977:INSC:227 : (1978) 1 SCC 405 and in Dipak Babaria and another v. State of Gujarat and others, 2014:INSC:48 : (2014) 3 SCC 502 . It was also held that no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the order impugned on grounds different than the once contained in the notice issued earlier. 4. The present letters patent appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who was private respondent No. 8 in the writ petition, who appears to have been instrumental, through his Counsel respondent No. 7 in the writ petition in the revisional authority passing the order impugned. 4A. 4. The present letters patent appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who was private respondent No. 8 in the writ petition, who appears to have been instrumental, through his Counsel respondent No. 7 in the writ petition in the revisional authority passing the order impugned. 4A. The main argument as was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge ought not to have sustained order of assignment which allegedly was made contrary to rules, but could have at best ordered the official respondents to give a fresh opportunity to the writ petitioner to meet the allegations made against the petitioner. 5. Admittedly, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge has not been challenged by the official respondents. The petitioner it appears also seeks assignment of land in his capacity as an ex-servicemen, for which an application appears to have been filed before the concerned authority. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant at no point of time had filed any petition seeking direction against the official respondents for a decision on the representation filed by him in regard to the assignment of land in his favour. In the absence of any such petition, the matter before the writ Court primarily was between the petitioner and the official respondents. The appellant herein cannot be said to be a person aggrieved inasmuch as his right to get as assignment of land is independent of the right vested in the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein to seek such an assignment in his individual capacity. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a parcel of land on assignment basis in terms of the prevalent policy in his capacity as a serving soldier or not and whether there was an appropriate order of assignment issued with the approval of the concerned committee was an issue between the petitioner and the official respondents. 6. The appellant certainly cannot be said to be a 'person aggrieved'. As to who is a 'person aggrieved' has very lucidly been dealt with by the Apex Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar and others, 1975:INSC:333 : AIR 1976 SC 578 , it held thus: "47. In the light of the above discussion, it is demonstrably clear that the appellant has not been denied or deprived of a legal right. He has not sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In the light of the above discussion, it is demonstrably clear that the appellant has not been denied or deprived of a legal right. He has not sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In fact, the impugned order does not operate as a decision against him, much less does it wrongfully affect his title to something. He has not been subjected to a legal wrong. He has suffered no legal grievance. He has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on. Therefore he is not a 'person aggrieved' and has no locus standi to challenge the grant of the No-objection Certificate. 51. For all the foregoing reasons, we are of opinion that the appellant had no locus standi to invoke this special jurisdiction under Article 228 of the Constitution. Accordingly, we answer the question posed at the commencement of this judgment, in the negative, and on that ground, without entering upon the merits of the case, dismiss this appeal with costs." 7. Be that as it may, we hold that notwithstanding the fact that the appellant herein was incorporated as a party respondent in the writ petition yet the appellant has no locus standi to file the present letters patent appeal as he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved. 8. Be that as it may, we hold that the present writ appeal is not maintainable by the appellant herein and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.