The court emphasized the importance of genuine PILs and the verification of the petitioner's credentials before entertaining a PIL. It also clarified that revocation of building permission in a PIL was not feasible when the title of the property was disputed, and the question of encroachment had to be decided based on evidence.

ORDER

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. - Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. By way of this Public Interest Litigation(PIL), the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs :-

(a) to direct the respondent authorities to demolish the illegally constructed structure on the LIQ;

(b) to direct the removal of encroachment made by the respondent no.6 on the LIQ;

© to direct the respondent no.4 to revoke the building permission granted on 15/10/2020;

(d) to direct the respondent no.5 to revoke the layout sanction granted on 26/02/2020;

(e) to pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a social worker. He is also a member and office bearer of various social welfare organizations and he has no personal interest in the present petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no.6 has illegally encroached on Nazul land, area about 30,000 Square Feet in connivance with some officers and is illegally constructing a building, due to which not only the general public, but also the interest of the State Government is adversely affected. The land encroached upon is situated at Survey No.634 at Mohalla Sutaro Ka Vas besides Lakkad Pitha, Idgah Road, Ratlam(M.P.). Earlier vide order dated 13.03.2007(Annexure-P/2) the Sub-Divisional Officer(S.D.O.) had directed to record the land in the name of respondent No.6. The Collector revised the order dated 13.03.2007 in suo motu revision by setting aside the order.(Annexure-P/3). The State of Madhya Pradesh approached the Waqf Board and the Waqf Board vide order dated 02.06.2017 cancelled the order in favour of the respondent no.6. The aforesaid application was filed before the Waqf Board after a lapse of 8 years i.e. in 2015. The State filed the revision bearing C.R. No.591/2019 which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Waqf Board, which is still pending. The respondent no.6 challenged the order(Annexure-P/8) passed by the respondent No.3-Tehsildar restoring possession to respondent no.6 in W.P. No.7820/2022 which was subsequently withdrawn. The respondent no.6 has no document of title in respect of the property. Therefore, the present writ petition.

4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner has not given his complete antecedents and have also not disclosed as to what public interest work he has performed for the Society. Learned counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others, (2019) 1 MPLJ 75 to contend that the petitioner has failed to produce on record to satisfaction of the Court such social work in last couple of years in the area in respect of which Public Interest is involved. Merely spending money like lawyer's fees from their own pocket does not satisfy test of locus standi. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.

5. The Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Pratap Singh(supra), has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court involving Public Interest Litigation in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, (2010) 3 SCC 402 wherein the Apex Court has laid down certain guidelines to be followed before exercising jurisdiction of Public Interest Litigation. The guidelines are as under :-

(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.

(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not