The Allahabad High Court while dismissing a PIL said that once the petitioner himself is resident of the Society, the filing of the petition by claiming himself as President of an unregistered Society regarding a personal dispute, which may also be relevant to the other flat owners, cannot make the subject matter as public interest litigation.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar passed this order while hearing a PIL filed by Mohan Singh.
The petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the allotment and sale-deed executed by Prayagraj Development Authority with respect to the property, Buddh Vihar Colony, Devghat, Jhalwa Awas Yojna in favour of respondent no 5 and seeking further direction to ensure that the encroachment and illegal construction upon the reserve parking area be removed and demolished.
Submissions have been made that the petitioner is President of Buddh Vihar Awas Samiti, an unregistered Society of the residents of Buddh Vihar Colony. The submissions have been made that a brochure was issued in the year 2009 by the Development Authority for three projects which included Buddh Vihar Devghat Jhalwa, Awas Yojna wherein persons belonging to Lower Income Group and Financially Weaker Section could make the application and based on the lottery system, the allotments were made for 256 flats, wherein 224 flats are under Lower Income Group and 32 flats are under Financially Weaker Section.
It is claimed that a plot in front of Block No L-11 of Buddh Vihar was reserved as a parking zone, which was being used by the residents of Buddh Vihar Colony.
However, the respondent P.D.A figured the plot as C-36-C and allotted the same to respondent no 5. It is only when the construction was being raised on the said plot, the petitioner became aware about the said allotment and based on the R.T.I application, the information was made available pertaining to the allotment of the plot and execution of the lease-deed in favour of respondent no 5.
Submissions have been made that the said allotment was ex facie contrary to the scheme under which the flats were constructed wherein the said area was earmarked as parking zone and was being used as such and, therefore, the action of the respondents deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Counsel appearing for the Development Authority, under the directions of the Court, has produced the map prepared in the year 2009 pertaining to the disputed site.
It was submitted by counsel for the Development Authority that the plot in question is not even part of the area where the flats have been constructed. The said plot is wholly independent and is attached to other housing schemes and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard is ex facie baseless.
Further submissions have been made that there is no question of providing parking, as claimed by the petitioner, which cannot accommodate the vehicles of all the flats. Merely because the plot was lying vacant at a given point of time and was being used by the petitioner cannot make the same as a land reserved for parking and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard is baseless.
Further submissions have been made that the petitioner is a person interested in the subject matter of the petition inasmuch he himself is a resident of the said colony and, therefore, filing of the public interest petition is wholly inappropriate.
“The plea raised in the petition, admittedly, is by the resident of the colony wherein the plot in question has been allotted by the P.D.A to respondent no 5. Once the petitioner himself is resident of the Society, the filing of the petition by claiming himself as President of an unregistered Society regarding a personal dispute, which may also be relevant to the other flat owners, cannot make the subject matter as public interest litigation.
Be that as it may, having gone through the map, as produced by the respondents, it is apparent that the said piece of land, which has been allotted to respondent no 5, cannot be termed as a ‘parking place’ meant for the residents of the flats of the colony wherein the petitioner is residing. The area of the plot is such which can not accommodate the vehicles of a total 256 flats, nor its location is such that the same would form part of the flats in question. Mere fact that the vacant plot was being used by some residents as a parking place cannot arm them with a right to continue to use the same as parking place”, the Court observed while dismissing the petition.