The Madras High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for a direction to the District Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer of Salem District to cancel the illegal patta in favour of private respondents for encroaching on the public road.
The PIL has been filed by Advocate Karunamoorthy subsequently seeking direction to the respondents authorities to remove the encroachment put forth by them on the public road leading to Pannavadi village from Kolathur, Salem District pursuant to petitioner’s representation dated 06.08.2020.
It is alleged that public roads have been encroached by private respondents and they obtained pattas way back in 2003.
Considering the rival submissions, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that as per the revenue records, the land in question is ryotwari land. The construction is on a part of the road, rather, it is in line with the neighbouring building.
Also Read: Faridabad Municipal Corporation to pay compensation to Khori Gaon dwellers: Supreme Court
The Court observed that since the PIL is filed by an Advocate, though such practice has been deprecated by the Apex Court in the case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 590, where, in paragraph 20, it has been held as under:
“20. …. It is high time that the Bar Councils and the Bar Associations ensure that no member of the Bar becomes party as petitioner or in aiding and/or abetting files frivolous petitions carrying the attractive brand name of “public interest litigation”. That will be keeping in line with the high traditions of the Bar. No one should be permitted to bring disgrace to the noble profession. …”
In view of the above, the Bench found it to be a litigation not in public interest, but seems to be involving some personal interest. Therefore, the petition is dismissed without imposing costs.
Also Read: Allahabad HC directs UP education officer to reply in two weeks
“The petitioner is exempted from paying costs as he is an advocate, otherwise filing of such public interest litigation deserves imposition of costs,” the order reads.