The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) field questioning the sale of the nazul land which was granted on lease by the government to Private Respondent No.8 for building purpose who, subsequently, transferred the said land on lease to respondent Nos. 9 to 13 (Private Respondents) through registered sale deeds without obtaining any permission from the Government.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma noted that ii is undisputed that the land in question was given by the Government to respondent No.8 on lease for the period 1969 to 31st of march, 1992, which was subsequently renewed till March, 2022. Prior to year 2019, there was no provision for converting Nazul lease hold land into free hold in the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, the power of lessee of Nazul land were only limited to possess, use and assign their lease hold land in accordance with the lease agreement. The transfer of Nazul land require the substitution of new lessee in the Nazul record upon notification or submission of applicable assignment or transfer deeds.
Due to the aforementioned legal position and prevailing law, Respondent No.8 had been holding the subject land with right to success renewal of the permanent lease and right of assignment without prior permission of lessor or Collector, as per terms of lease agreement. Respondent No.8 has subsequently, assigned the lease hold rights to respondent Nos. 9 to 13 and the same was never objected never challenged before any Revenue Authorities or Collector. Further, the amount in the sale deed and lease amount were similar, hence, it cannot be said it was transferred rather it was assigned, which is not barred anywhere.
However, on 11/09/2019, the Government of Chhattisgarh has issued a circular thereby allowing lessee of Nazul land and other Government land to convert their land into free hold land. Based on above policy land and order of State Government thousands of lessees including respondent No. 9 to 13 have converted their lease hold rights into free hold rights by obtaining necessary permission from the Government. Respondent Nos. 9 to 13, thereafter, got free hold rights over the land by the expressed order of Revenue Authorities, which was never challenged by the petitioner. It is a settled proposition that there exists a strong presumption in favour of all the administrative Acts of the Government officials and burden of proof to prove contrary that Government officials have not acted in accordance with law lies on petitioner, which has never been discharged by the petitioner.
“Needless to say, the land in question is now free hold land after issuance circular of Government in the year 2019 and subsequent order passed thereafter, there is no infirmity in the assigning or transfer of land. It is noteworthy here that Section 6 (i) of the Transfer of Property Act lease hold interest is transferable right unless it is restricted or made nontransferable right under relevant lease as the lease deed does not prescribe such condition. So, the transfer is well within the limit of law “.
There is another aspect of the dispute that Madhya Pradesh High Court in the Ali Das (Supra) and this High Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dulari Bai3 has held that provisions of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1955 would not be applicable to Nazul Land situated at urban areas, therefore, the question of violation of 165 (7-B) of the Land Revenue Code does not come into play in the present matter.
Even otherwise, thousands of lands have been transferred after issuance of circular of 2019, it is not clear as to why only respondent Nos. 8 to 13 has been targeted by the petitioner. The Court said that the present dispute is a dispute purely of civil nature which relates to a land of respondent No. 8 and the said dispute cannot be settled by invoking jurisdiction of the Court more particularly as a Public Interest Litigation, when the petitioner has no locus standi and has nothing to do with the dispute. Entertaining the dispute of like nature will amount to abuse of process of law and the same cannot be allowed.
It is not clear to the Court that as to what public interest is being affected by the said land of 11,700 Sq. feet. It is also clear from reply of the State that they have no objection to the said sale or lease of land. The petition also does not disclose as to what is the locus of the petitioner and what is the public interest involved. In such circumstances, the jurisdiction of the Court in the garb of public interest litigation, cannot be invoked.
“It is a settled propositions that every litigant, who approaches the Court, owes a duty to approach the Court with clean hands and disclose complete facts. It is also well settled that a petition which lacks bona fides and is intended to settle some personal sores under the garb of PIL would be nothing but abuse of the process of law. (see: Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India,)”
Further, the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. has held that the Court has to take a cautious approach while entertaining public interest litigation and held that public interest litigation is a weapon, which has to be used with great care and circumspection. The judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that no ugly private malice, vested interest and/or seeking publicity lurks behind the beautiful veil of public interest. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief.
Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the Court do not find any public interest in the petition, therefore, this Court was not inclined to entertain the petition filed as PIL.