Public Interest Litigation requires bona fide intentions and must not be pursued when alternative remedies are available, as established in the context of land use violations.

JUDGMENT :

Per: Chowdhary, J.

01. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, as Public Interest Litigation, seeking a writ of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the Order dated 22.06.2024 passed in the file No. 9-JK-060/2022, whereby ‘In-Principle Approval’ with regard to the ‘gair mumkin jhad’ (State land) measuring 05 kanals 05 marlas falling under khasra No. 667 min/599 situated at Maha, Tehsil and District Kathua has been granted allegedly in violation of J&K Big Land Estates Abolition Act, 2007 and Forest Conservation Rules, 2022 and also seeking a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents No. 2 to 4 to constitute an independent committee for conducting an enquiry with regard to the illegal action of the respondents of issuing fard, executing sale deed, changing the nature and attesting Mutation No. 707 of 2024 dated 18.09.2024 of ‘gair mumkin jhad’ land falling in khasra No. 667 min/599 situated at Mehah Patti Tehsil and District Kathua with a purpose to open a commercial petrol pump on a wood waste and further commanding the respondents to restrain the respondent No. 13 and his agents from interfering into the ‘gair mumkin jhad’ falling in khasra No. 667min/599 situated at Mehah Patti Tehsil & District Kathua already escheated to the Government.

02. The petitioner has asserted in his petition, that in village Maha tehsil and district Kathua, there exists a gair mumkin khadd measuring 9 kanal 14 marlas falling under khasra No. 667/559 and along wi th the said gair mumkin khadd, a ‘gair mumkin Jhad’ measuring 12 Kanal 13 Marlas also exists, which is a dense forest area consisting of thousands of trees, vegetation and plantation near khad; that the said ‘gair mumkin jhad’ stands escheated to the State after the coming into force of the J&K Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, Svt. 2007; that despite passing of the said Act, the fard intikhab of the aforesaid ‘gair mumkin jhad’ was issued fraudulently by the revenue agency and land measuring 5 kanals 5 marlas, out of the said ‘gair mumkin jhad’ was purchased by the private respondent No. 13 from Makhan Singh and others and Rakesh Kumar, despite having a ban in the UT of J&K for registration of sale deed with regard to the land in question for opening a petrol pump of Indian Oil Corporation in connivance with the revenue officials, in regard whereof mutation bearing No. 707/2024 dated 18.09.2024 was also attested by the Tehsildar Kathua.

03. It is pleaded in the petition that being aggrieved of the mutation (supra), the petitioner herein filed a Revision Petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, which was transferred by the respondent No. 3 to Additional Commissioner vested with the powers of Additional Commissioner, who did not take any action initially and kept the matter pending without assigning any reasons; that being aggrieved of the inaction on the part of the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, the petitioner filed a writ petition-WP(C) No. 3061/2024 for preserving the ‘gair mumkin jhad’ in public interest, which was allowed to be withdrawn with a liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 22.06.2024, whereby ‘In principle Approval’ was granted in favour of the private respondent; that whole exercise of getting the ‘In principle Approval’ and ‘final approval’ from the Ministry for opening a petrol pump has been conducted without disclosing the fact that the ‘gair mumkin jhad’ land stands already escheated to the State.

04. It is further pleaded in the petition that the petitioner has filed the present Public Interest Litigation against the inaction of the respondents of converting ‘gair mumkin jhad’ (State land) into a commercial petrol pump in violation of the J&K Big Landed Estate Abolition Act, Svt. 2007 and has also challenged the ‘In-Principle Approval’granted vide order dated 22.06.2024 issued by the Regional Officer Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, in favour of the respondent No. 13 in violation of the pr