Dismissed

Sunil Gond v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024WPIL/1146/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL sought mandamus to constitute an enquiry committee for encroachment on public land (Banzar plot and pond) in village Bhusaudi, Jaunpur, and restoration of a road and pond. Instructions revealed prior civil suits decided against the petitioner and a pending suit not disclosed in the PIL. The court declined to entertain the PIL as an abuse of process, citing Balwant Singh Chaufal, and dismisse

What the court decided

AI extract

Sunil Gond Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113933

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1146 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sunil Gond Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kedar Nath Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C.,Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Kedar Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, the Land Management Committee concerned and Shri D. K. Tripathi, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7.

¶7

The instant writ petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, Jaunpur to constitute the Committee for enquiry into illegal encroachment made over the public utility land as Arazi No. 594K area 0.178 hectare recorded as Banzar and Arazi No. 591 Kha area 0.0160 hectare recorded as Pond and being used as road by the villagers of the revenue village Bhusaudi, Pargana Anguli, Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur and get the land vacated from the encroachment of the respondent No. 6 and 7 and restore the original nature of the public road and pond.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondent submits that instructions have been received from the office of the Tehsildar, Shahganj, Jaunpur which is taken on record.

¶9

A perusal of the instructions reveals that Plot No. 594 area 2.002 hectare recorded as Banzar is a large plot comprised of 03 plots i.e. Plot No. 594 K, area 0.178 hectare (subject matter of the present PIL), Plot No. 594 Kha area 0.485 hectare recorded as Abadi and Plot No. 594 Ga area 1.339 hectare recorded as User. Over the entire area of Plot No. 594 Abadi exists prior to consolidation. There is no chak marg over Plot No. 594. The petitioner has requested for a passage over Plot No. 594 K which is currently

¶10

being used as passage by the villagers. The instructions further reveal that a civil litigation was instituted in respect of the Plot No. 594 K, being Original Suit No. 812 of 1995 which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 2.9.2008. The Appeal No. 89 of 2008 was also dismissed on 13.3.2004. Another suit, being Suit No. 70 of 2024 was instituted by the petitioner along with his mother before the Civil Judge, (Jr.Div.), Shahganj, Jaunpur which was dismissed on 17.5.2024. The petitioner has yet again instituted another Suit No. 351 of 2024 which is stated to be pending.

¶11

Instructions have also been received from the office of the Pradhan of the village concerned. The same is also taken on record.

¶12

Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel representing the Land Management Committee, respondent No. 5 on the basis of the instructions submits that Civil Suit No. 351 of 2024 is pending consideration before the Civil Court in respect of Arazi No. 594 K area 0.1780 hectare. Earlier litigation has been decided against the petitioner. Civil litigation is pending between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 6 & 7. The instructions further reveal that abadi of respondent Nos. 6 & 7 exists over Plot No. 594 K since ages. So far as Arazi No. 591 Kha area 0.0160 is concerned, the same is recorded as Garhah and there is no encroachment over the said arazi.

¶13

I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record as also the instructions received.

¶14

The Court finds that the petitioner has attempted to achieve what he could not achieve by civil litigation. Admittedly, civil litigation is pending before the Civil Court but the same has not been disclosed in the PIL.

¶15

The Apex Court in the case of State of Uttranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, reported in 2010 (3) SCC 402 while dealing with abuse of Public Interest Litigation in para 143 of the judgment observed as under:-

¶16

"161. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged.

¶17

162. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but

¶18

we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non- monetary directions by the courts."

¶19

Further in the same judgment the Apex Court in order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the Public Interest Litigation issued the following directions:-

¶20

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

¶21

(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 yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter.

¶22

(3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L.

¶23

(4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.

¶24

(5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.

¶25

(6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.

¶26

(7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.

¶27

(8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.

¶28

In view of above, the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ (PIL). The same is accordingly dismissed . However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Ravi Prakash

¶30

(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil Gond v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sunil Gond v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases