K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) SABHAPATI, opposite party No. 2 in the present writ petition had filed a suit under section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the Gaon Sabha and State of U. P.
(2.) THE aforesaid suit was decreed on 29-12-1970. THEreafter an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was moved on behalf of the State of 0. P. but the same was rejected. It appears that Gaon Sabha and the present petitioner Rajeshwar had filed two separate applications for seeting aside the exparte decree dated 29-12-1970 in favour of the contesting opposite party Sabhapati. The trial court through its judgment dated 13-3-1972 allowed the application filed by the Gaon Sabha for setting aside the exparte decree but had rejected the application moved by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had no right to move the application for setting aside the exparte decree in favour of the plaintiff opposite party no. 2 Sabha Pati. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff Sabhapati had preferred a revision petition recommended by the Commissioner, Varanasi division through his order dated 21-10-1972 to be rejected. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, through his impugned order dated 27-2-1976 has allowed the revision petition filed by the plaintiff Sabhapati, opposite party no. 2 in the present writ petition. Now, the petitioner Rajeshwar and another have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against the judgment of the revisional court. I have heard the counsel for the parties in the present writ petition. One of the question involved in the present writ petition is as to whether the present petitioner Rajeshwar can maintain the writ petition especially when his application for setting aside the exparte decree had been rejected by the trial court and he had not preferred any appeal. The application moved by the Gaon Sabha was no doubt allowed by the trial court but in revision at the instance of the plaintiff opposite party no. 2, the same has been set aside and the exparte decree in favour of the plaintiff stands, yet the Gaon Sabha has not filed the present writ petition.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that the petitioners being members of the village can maintain the present writ petition. I had expressed my doubt to the learned counsel for the petitioners about maintainability of the present writ petition during the course of argument. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the ruling Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1966 SC 828 and had emphasized the following observations in paragraph 8 of the judgment :- ".........This Court held in the decision cited supra that "ordinarily" the petitioner who seeks to file an application under Article 226 of the Constitution should be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject matter of the petition. A personal right need not be in respect of a proprietary interest ; it can also relate to an interest of a trustee. That apart, in exceptional cases as the expression "ordinarily" indicates, a person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority can file a writ even though he has no proprietary or even fiduciary interest in the subject matter thereof. The appellant has certainly been prejudiced by the said order. The' petition under Article 226 of the Constitution at his instance, is therefore, maintainable." ;