Back
2006 Supreme(Chh) 436
2006(2) C.G.L.J. 427
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Hon'ble Shri S.R. Nayak, C.J. & Hon'ble Shri D.R. Deshmukh, J.
AMIT SINGH WALIA & ANOTHER Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF C.G. & OTHERS Respondents
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 1062 of 2004,
Decided on 19-9-2006.
Shri B.P. Sharma with Shri Ajit Singh, Advocates, for the Petitioners.
Shri Prashant Mishra, Additional Advocate General, for the State/respondents No.1 & 2.
Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Shri Ashish Shrivastava and Shri Amrito Das, Advocates, for the Respondents No.5, 6, 7, 8 & 10.
Shri K.N. Bhatt, Senior Advocate with Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondents No. 15 to 24.
Headnote:
Writ petition filed by practicing Advocate and freelance Journalist as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to espouse fraudulent transfers of forest land. Court held that petitioners were not pro bono public characters and dismissed the petition with exemplary costs.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners filed a PIL to challenge the fraudulent transfers of more than 400 acres of forest land. The land was originally vested in the State under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950 (1950 Act) and the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (1960 Act). The petitioners alleged that the land was transferred to private parties through 13 sale deeds executed between 1996 and 2001, notwithstanding the fact that the land had already vested in the State. The State Government and the private parties contested the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners were not pro bono public characters and that the petition was filed for extraneous considerations to serve the interest of a rival company to the private parties. The Court noted that the first petitioner was a practicing Advocate and partner of a law firm, and that he had filed the petition in conjunction with other colleagues who were also advocates for the rival company. The Court also noted that the petitioners had filed several other PILs against the same private parties, all of which were directed against the interest of their client's business rival. The Court held that the petitioners had no locus standi to file the petition and that it was an abuse of the process of the Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were pro bono public characters and whether the Court was obliged to go into the merits of the issues brought before the Court by way of this PIL? 2. Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed in limine on the ground of delay and laches? 3. In view of the initiation of the fresh proceedings by the Competent Authority in respect of the lands which are not declared as surplus in the first set of ceiling cases and since those proceedings were pending before the Competent Authority for decision, was there any necessity for this Court to deal with the issues that arose for decision on merit? 4. If the Court were to consider the merits of the matter: (a) Whether area of 1001.81 acres of land situate in Shivpuri village, District Raigarh belonging to ex-proprietor Hariprasad Naik have already vested in the State with effect from 31-03-1951 by virtue of the provisions of 1950 Act and that no portion of the said land could be allotted/settled in the name of late Hariprasad Naik and his relatives? (b) Whether the Competent Authority has complied with the observation made by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in para 21 of its order in Misc. Petition No.275 of 1982 dated 04-01-1983? (c) Whether the transfers of 346.73 acres of land out of 1001.81 acres of land in favour of the respondents 3 to 14 are illegal, because, the entire 1001.81 acres of land was already vested in the State Government as on the dates of the transfers? (d) Whether the execution u; the sale-deeds are illegal and defective because of the improper stamp duty paid by the parties to the sale-deeds and on account of the non-registration of the power of attorney executed by the holders of the lands in favour of the their attorney?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court for the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights or other legal rights and to enforce public law duties against the administration. But a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration has no locus standi. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour or garb of PIL brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance or grievance of one's friend or client or principal deserves rejection at the threshold.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition with costs quantified at RS.25,000/-, payable to the Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee, within a period of 15 days from the date of the order.
As per Hon'ble Shri S.R. Nayak, C.J. :-
1. This writ petition is filed by Shri Amit Singh Walia, S/o Shri Lekhraj Walia, who is a practicing Advocate in Raipur and partner of V.K. Munshi & associates, a Jaw firm and Shri Rajendra Kumar, S/o Shri Daulat Ram, a Freelance Journalist, as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to espouse a public ,cause. What prompted them to file this PIL, in their own words, is the following circumstance:
"The petitioners are citizens of the India and are filing the present writ petition in public interest to expose the fraudulent transfers of more than 400 acres of valuable forest land situated at village Shivpuri P.c. NO.IS, Bandobast No.398, R.T. Circle, Block, Tahsii and District Raigarh (C.G.) belonging to the State of Chhattisgarh by the Respondents 3 to 14 in favour of the Respondent No. 15 to 24 through 13 different Deeds of Sale executed between 26-12-1996 to 16-08-2001, notwithstanding the fact that the aforesaid 400 acres of forest land had already vested in the State firstly by virtue of section 3 of M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals & Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called "the 1950 Act") and secondly by virtue of section 12 of the M.P. Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter called "the 1960 Act") and as such the respondent Nos. 3 to 14 had no right, title or interest in the said land on the dates of the said 13 deeds of sale. Although 'according to a very modest estimate the market value of the aforesaid 400 acres of the forest land with several lacs of trees standing thereon on the date of filing of this writ petition works out more than 50 crores, the entire land had been sold for a nominal consideration of Rs. 18,04,442/- in the aggregate through the aforesaid 13 fraudulent Deeds of sale. In tact, the petitioners as public spirited persons have been constrained to file the present writ petition in public interest on account of the gross negligence, inaction, apathy and/or connivance between the directly concerned officers of the State Government and the family members of Late Hari Prasad Naik, the original owners of the aforesaid lands prior to vesting by the 1950 Act and the 1960 Act in carrying out the directions given by Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in writ petition being M.P. No. 275 of 1982 in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Board of Revenue and others reported in 1983 JLJ 206. A copy of the aforesaid reported judgment is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-Pit for facility of reference."
2. The background facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:
One Hariprasad Naik was proprietor of village Shivpuri in Raigarh District. The proprietary rights were abolished by the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act. 1950 (for short 1950 Act") with effect from 31-03-1951 which was the date of vesting under the said Act. The consequences of vesting are given in Section 4 of the 1950 Act and as per which the land covered under the 1950 Act vests in the State free from all encumbrances, all rights, title and interest of the proprietor in the land of a proprietary village including grass land, scrub jungle, forest etc. Under the 1950 Act, the following lands were allotted in Bhoomiswami rights to the ex-proprietor Hariprasad Naik, his wife and his other relations in the family and the details are as follows: (i) Hariprasad Naik, Khasra No.12, area 496.76 acres; (ii) Krishna Kumar (wife's sister of Hariprasad), Khasra Nos.30 and 39, area 183.32 acres; (iii) Sitarani, w/o Hariprasad, Khasra Nos.26, 27 and 28 area 245.00 acres and (iv) Tarlika Kumari, d/o Krishna Kumari, Khasra No.11, area 76.73 acres.
3. After coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (for short" 1960 Act"), four ceiling cases were initiated in respect of the aforesaid holders. The ceiling case in respect of Hariprasad Naik was Case No. 1 78/8/90-B/63/64. The Competent Authority by order dated 19-07-1
