Court emphasized the limited applicability of public interest provisions when personal disputes are disguised as public grievances.

JUDGMENT :-

1. This Appeal under Section 104(1)(ffa) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (The Code, 1908) is directed against an order dated 4th February 2023 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court at Dindoshi (Borivali Division), Goregaon, Mumbai declining to grant leave to institute a suit under Section 91 (1)(b) of the Code, 1908.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts can be stated as under:

2.1 The appellants-complainants claimed to be public spirited persons. They professed to espouse the cause of the public on account of alleged inaction on the part of the authorities in prohibiting the wrongful acts of Respondent- Defendant No.7.

2.2. The substance of the grievance of the plaintiffs, which allegedly affects the public, is that land bearing CTS No. 4957 and 4957/1 corresponding to Survey No. 295, Hissa No.6 situated at Village Kole-Kalyan, Taluka Andheri (the suit property) belongs to Kumar Engineering Works and others. The Defendant No.7 claims to have acquired the adjacent property bearing CTS No. 4958-D, 4958-D/1 to 124 and CTS No. 4889, 4889/1 to 4, 4890, 4894/A, 4894-A/1 and 2 and 4894-B, 4894-B/1 to 5 admeasuring 4771.70 and 997.80 square metres respectively from A. H. Wadia Charity Trust– Defendant No.8, under an Indenture dated 3rd December 2007. Defendant No.7 has started implementing a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme over the aforesaid lands acquired from Defendant No.8.

2.3. In order to usurp the suit property, the Defendant No.7 allegedly illegally and fraudulently got transferred the suit property in connivance with the State machinery.

2.4 Plaintiffs assert that in the year 2014, the City Survey Offcer-Defendant No.3, carried out modifcation in the PR card in respect of CTS Nos.4957 to 4957/1. The plaintiff No.4 raised objection thereto. It transpired that the then Superintendent of Land Record has passed a fraudulent order on 1st November 2014 effacing the Survey Nos.4957 and 4957/1 from City Survey Record and amending the City Survey Map. The plaintiffs claimed to have frst assailled the said order before the Collector by preferring an application under Section 300 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (Code 1966) and later on fled an Appeal before the Deputy Director, Land Records (D.D.L.R.) under Section 247 of the Code, 1966. The D.D.L.R., however, declined to entertain the Appeal questioning the locus of the plaintiffs.

2.5. The plaintiffs aver that the authorities of the State in collusion with the Defendant No.7 have wrongfully effaced property card in respect of CTS No No.4957 and 4957/1 and consequently the Defendant No.7 has started developing the SRA scheme by usurping the suit property which belongs neither to Defendant No.7 nor to Defendant No.8. Plaintiffs further assert that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority- Defendant No.5 had also committed a wrongful act in issuing an illegal LOI even in respect of the suit property. These wrongful acts of the authorities of the State and Defendant No.7 affect the interest of the public at large. Hence, the suit under Section 91 of the Code seeking a decree to quash part of LOI dated 23rd March 2018 issued by Defendant No.5 in respect of the suit property and a declaration that the 7/12 extract and Form No.6 in respect of the suit property which stood in the name of Kumar Engineering Works and others are valid and binding on revenue and other State Authorities. 2.6. Since the plaintiffs professed to espouse the cause of the public, application seeking leave under Section 91 (1) (b) came to be fled.

2.7. Respondent-Defendant No.7 resisted the application contending inter alia that the suit for the reliefs claimed in