The Chhattisgarh High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 5000/- on the Petitioner and dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to take appropriate action against the erring persons for illegal utilization of forest land for other than forest purpose, in accordance with law.
Rahul Mishra , counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a public spirited citizen of this country and has been working in the field of law and order.
He submits that the land situated at vilage UnchdihTahsil and District Surajpur, is a forest land and the same is recorded as “Chhote Jhad Ka Jungle” in the revenue records. On 08.03.2020, a meeting of Gram Panchayat, Unchdih was convened and it was resolved to construct a Mandi building over the said land. Since the said land is a forest land, no construction can be made without prior approval of the Central Government and in this regard, the petitioner has made several complaints before the respondent authorities, but of no avail.
However, the Deputy Collector, Surajpur, vide memo dated 10.09.2020, directed the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Surajpur, to enquire into the complaint made by the petitioner. The Naib Tahsildar, directed the concerned Patwari to conduct a demarcation and submit his report. In the report submitted by the Patwari, it is clearly stated that the subject land is recorded under the head ‘Chote Jhad ka Jungle’. The petitioner also sought information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act from the Divisional Forest Office, Surajpur as to whether any persmission has been sought by the Gram Panchayat for construction of Mandi over the subject land. In response, the Divisional Forest Officer responded that no information is available in their office. The petitioner again made a representation before the said authority on 22.03.2021 for stopping the illegal construction of Mandi Building, but till date, no action has been taken. The petitioner has also made a representation to the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Unchdih on 25.03.2021 but the same has also not been paid any heed. Hence, this petition for the reliefs as prayed above.
On the other hand, Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents relying on the return filed, submits that initial Revenue Survey was conducted in the year 1935 and the land record was prepared which reveals the land bearing Khasra No. 1028 was shown as Grass Land. Further, in the year 1956, the proceeding was initiated regarding the Record of Rights which end upto 1962 and in the said proceeding due to wrong entry in the land record bearing Khasra No. 1028 which was shown as ‘Chhote Jhad Ka Jungle’. As per Khasra Panchsala for the year 1992-1993 to 1994-1995. In the year 1994, during resettlement in land records the Khasra number of the land was re-numbered .The said khasra has further been bifurcated . When the authorities came to know that some wrong entry has been made as the subject land was a grass land but was recorded as ‘Chhote Jhad Ka Jungle’, the same was rectified by initiating proceedings under Section 115 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The resolution for construction of Mandi Building was forwarded by the Gram Panchayat to the CEO, Zila Panchayat, Surajpur who prepared a proposal for administrative sanction and upon receipt of administrative sanction, under the MNREGA scheme, issued the work order in favour of the Gram Panchayat. Further, on receipt of the complaint made by the petitioner, the Deputy Collector vide order dated 10.09.2020 directed the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) to conduct enquiry and in turn, the Patwari was directed to submit a report. The report of the Patwari it has been stated that there is no such ‘Chote Jhad Ka Jungle’ on the subject land.
Merely on account of some wrong entry, the petitioner has arrived at the conclusion that forests are being removed for construction of Mandi Building which is totally misconceived. The Mandi Building is being constructed for the public at large and not for any personal use. The petition being frivolous deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.
Having considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and gone through the record, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rajani Dubey noted that to mention that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive and oblique notice behind filing of PIL. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, the Courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
The Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. It is also well settled that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Courts should ensure the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bona fide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests.
Except for stating that the petitioner is a public spirited person, nothing further has been stated about the credentials of the petitioner. The petition itself appears to be vague and sketchy, hence, no relief as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner can be granted. The construction of a Mandi building is for the benefit of the people of the locality. The return filed by the State/respondents No. 1 to 4 are self-explanatory and in light of what has been stated therein, this petition is dismissed, the Court ordered.