The Bombay High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the Petitioner and rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed contending that the members of the family of one person and all of them have illegally and surreptitiously acquired possession of 20 different plots of land and have constructed about 10 to 15 houses.
The Aurangabad Division Bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Y. G. Khobragade heard the matter for quite some time and noted that the petition smacks of a personal vendetta between the petitioner and a person, that the Court was informed the Advocate for the petitioner that if it conclude that the petition is not in public interest, but is in private interest, it would impost costs. The Advocate for the petitioner accepted this situation and continued to argue.
The High Court found from the pleadings set out in the petition , as under:-
(a) The petitioner had first approached the District Collector on 17.12.2021 making serious personal allegations against a person.
(b) In the said complaint, he has mentioned the names of 20 persons, contending that they are the members of the family of the person and all of them have illegally and surreptitiously acquired possession of 20 different plots of land and have constructed about 10 to 15 houses.
(c) In the said representation, it is said that the person has constructed a bungalow worth Rs. 50,00,000/-.
(d) It is further stated that the person has diverted a water supply pipeline into his own farm and from 1996-1997 onwards, he is using the said water by depriving the villagers of drinking water.
(e) The person is a “Dada” and has created an atmosphere of terror in the village.
(f) The person operates a club, which is adjacent to the Samaj Mandir.
(g) The person has acted in connivance with , retired Clerk and has indulged in extortion and grabbing sand worth rupees 5 to 6 lakh. Both are extortionists and continue to extort money from people.
(h) The person is a politician.
(i) Another lady whose name is not mentioned, in connivance with the person , indulges in extortion.
(j) In a further representation dated 25.04.2022 addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, the Petitioner has put forth 29 complaints with regard to the person ,his family members. These allegations are in the nature of criminal offences allegedly committed by the person.
(k) It is further stated that he illegally operates a club and a hotel without any permit and serves liquor.
Considering the above, the Court noted that the petition is not filed for a cause in public interest. There appears to be a personal rivalry between the petitioner and the person. Moreover, the petitioner has systematically/conspicuously not arrayed the person as a respondent. In addition, the 20 family members of the person , who are also said to have indulged in grabbing lands and plots, are not arrayed as respondents. Considering the above, the High Court is of the view that the time of the Court has been wasted.
“This petition is, therefore, rejected by imposing costs of Rs.25,000/- which the Petitioner shall deposit in this Court on or before 31.07.2023. If not deposited, we would direct the concerned District Collector to recover the same as arrears of land revenue by following the due procedure laid down in law”, the order reads.