Mere Possession Does Not Make You an ‘Aggrieved Person’: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Locus Under Section 198(4)

“A Person Aggrieved Must Have Suffered a Legal Grievance — Not a Psychological or Imaginary Injury”, In a pointed ruling on locus standi in land allotment disputes, the Allahabad High Court decided on 12 February 2026, held that a person claiming possession over land without any lawful allotment cannot invoke Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as an “aggrieved person.”

Hon’ble Justice Prakash Padia dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, holding that the petitioner failed to establish any legally enforceable right. The Court reaffirmed that “existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction” is the very foundation of writ relief.

“Section 198(4) Can Be Invoked Suo Motu or By a ‘Person Aggrieved’ — Not by a Stranger to the Allotment”

The dispute concerned Plot No. 1560M, recorded as Banzar land in District Kannauj. The petitioner contended that the agricultural lease granted in 2014 to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was illegal because the land was allegedly not vacant at the time of allotment. He asserted ancestral possession, construction of a house, installation of a tube-well, and existence of trees on the land.

However, when confronted by the Court, it was “very fairly argued that at no point of time the land in question was allotted in favour of the petitioner.”

The petitioner had earlier moved an application under Section 198(4) seeking cancellation of the lease. The Additional Collector rejected the application, and the revision under Section 333 was also dismissed. The present writ petition challenged both orders.

The Court reproduced Section 198(4), which provides:

“The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire… and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and the lease, if any.”

Justice Padia emphasized that initiation of proceedings is confined either to the Collector acting suo motu or to a “person aggrieved.” The petitioner, therefore, had to first establish his legal injury.

“The Expression ‘Person Aggrieved’ Does Not Include a Person Who Suffers from a Psychological or Imaginary Injury”

Relying upon Munshi v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated:

“A person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance; a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something.”

The Court further invoked the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncement in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, observing:

“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.”

The Bench underscored that mere possession, unbacked by legal allotment or statutory entitlement, does not crystallize into an enforceable right. A “fanciful or sentimental grievance” cannot confer standing.

“Relief Under Article 226 Is Founded on the Existence of an Enforceable Right”

Drawing strength from Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P., the Court observed:

“The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction.”

It was reiterated that a stranger cannot maintain a writ of certiorari or mandamus unless exceptional circumstances involving grave miscarriage of justice or public interest are shown. In the present case, no such exceptional ground was demonstrated.

The petitioner neither established that he was wrongfully deprived of a legally recognized entitlement nor showed invasion of any statutory or constitutional right. His claim rested solely on alleged possession without lawful sanction.

The Allahabad High Court ultimately held that the petitioner “does not fall within the definition ‘aggrieved person’” under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. In absence of a legally enforceable right, the writ petition was declared not maintainable and dismissed without costs.

The ruling serves as a firm reiteration that Article 226 is not a forum for strangers to statutory proceedings. As the Court’s reasoning makes abundantly clear, only those who demonstrate a direct and legally cognizable injury can question land allotments — mere possession without lawful foundation does not create locus standi.

Date of Decision: 12 February 2026