Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

19.12.2024

1. Heard Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 6/State as well as Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, learned counsel for respondent No.7.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to matter from the concerned respondent authorities.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ (s), order (s), direction (s) by directing the respondent authorities, particularly Respondents No. 3 and 7 to act in accordance with the provisions contained under the law by clearing the public road (Government Land) and setting free the public road and Government Land from the clutches of respondents No.8 to 10 and in alternative, the petitioner is praying before this Hon'ble Court for issuance of writ of mandamus by directing the respondent authorities, particular respondents No. 3 and 7 to decide the application (Annexure P-2)

within time frame.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief (s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in the style of “Public Interest Litigation” challenging the inaction of illegally occupation of grabbing the Government land and further constructing the structure upon the said Government land bearing Khasra No.517, Rabka 1.4360 hectare, situated at village Juna Bilaspur, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). Challenge is also made against the inaction on the part of respondent No.3 and 7, who are not taking any action against the respondents No.8 to 10 with regard to the illegal construction over the said Government land.

4. Perusal of the record would show that there is a land dispute between the petitioner’s father and respondents No.8 to 10. It is reflected from the record that a Second Appeal No.314 of 2007 has been filed by the petitioner against respondents No.8 to 10. The said second appeal was decided by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.12.2019 observing as follows :-

“(5) Taking into consideration the fact that earlier suit was only for permanent injunction; and it is the case of the plaintiffs that now the construction has already been made by defendant No. 1 by encroaching the suit land (Nistari Rasta), therefore, it would be expedient to permit the appellants to withdraw this second appeal with liberty to file the comprehensive suit for declaration of title and possession and / or for mandatory injunction, if any.

(6) Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.”

5. Be that as it may, we are not considering whether the pleadings made by the petitioner are correct or not, but consideration of the Court is whether the writ petition filed in the style of 'Public Interest Litigation' is maintainable or not when the pleadings prima facie show the 'private interest' of the petitioner and not of the interest of 'public at large' ?

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Janata Dal v. H.S.

Chowdhary and Others reported in (1992) 4 SCC 305 has held thus :

“98. While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration.

109. It is thus clear that only 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 to wipe out