The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondent authorities to stop the sale of shops of shopping complex which were made on the land of Bilakhpur Dabri pond.
Brief facts of the case are that there is an ancient big pond named Bilakhpur Dabri in Balauda District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). According to revenue records, the Bilakhpur Dabri pond is situated on government land . The residents of Municipal Council Balauda have been using Bilakhpur Dabri pond for their daily routine work for many years ago and many agriculturists have been irrigating their crops from the water of Bilakhpur Dabri pond. This is a lifeline of the local residents and farmers and this is a identity of Balauda city. The underground water level of Baloda city is well maintained because of this big pond. Municipal Council, Balauda has built 3 shopping complex in the area of Bilakhpur Dabri pond and total 63 numbers of the shops were made in the above 3 shopping complex, due to which the existence of the pond is in danger.
The petitioners and some other local residents objected and opposed that a shopping complex has been made in the land of Bilakhpur Dabri pond. They demanded for demarcation and enquiry, then respondent No.5 (Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Balauda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh) sent letter to respondent No.4 (Tahsildar, Tahsil Balauda, District Janjgir Chmapa Chhattisgarh) requesting for demarcation of the land where the above 3 shopping complex were made. Respondent No.4 directed to Revenue Inspector, Balauda for demarcation vide order dated 27.06.2022. Then Revenue Inspector demarcated the above shopping complex on 20.09.2022 in the presence of the officials of the Municipal Council Balauda, ward members and some other local residents. Revenue Inspector submitted demarcation report to respondent No.4 on same date i.e. 20.09.2022.
It is clearly stated in the demarcation report that one shopping complex (29 shops) has been built in the part of land bearing Khasra No. 2591 which is a part of Bilakhpur Dabri pond. It is also stated in para-6 of the demarcation report that an approach road has been constructed to go shops in the part of land bearing Khasra No. 2591 which is a part of Bilakhpur Dabri pond. After building the above shopping complex, the shops are being sold by Municipal Council, Balauda. After selling of the shops, the business will be started. In this way gradually the entire pond will be filled-up by the buildings and shops. Hence, the the petitioners have approached the High Court.
Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate , for the petitioners at the very outset has submitted that shops have been constructed on the part of land which is a part of Bilakhpur Dabri pond and are ready for auction and the petitioners have come up before this Court for stopping of the same and he has further pointed out that by construction of the said shops on the irrigated land, the petitioners are facing hardships due to scarcity of water.
The Counsel for the State has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present PIL by contending that though the petition is ostensibly filed in the public interest, the petitioners have not made due disclosure as required as per the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1029, therefore, he prays for dismissal of this present PIL.
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 Ravindra Kumar Agrawal said 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 petitioners 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. The petition itself appears to be vague and sketchy and further from own showing of the petitioners, it appears to be personal interest of the petitioners, hence, no relief as prayed for by counsel for the petitioners can be granted , held by the High Court.