Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 495 (PNJ)

Parma Nand v. State Of Haryana

2009-03-17

HEMANT GUPTA, T.S.THAKUR

body2009
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The present writ petition, filed in public interest, challenges the action of the State Government, whereby the land acquired has been released in favour of the private respondents, after the possession of the same was taken over, allegedly in contravention of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act). 2. The petitioner has alleged himself to be a social worker and working in the interest of general public and the Government. It is alleged that the Government of Haryana published notification under Section 6 of the Act on 26.8.1988, acquiring 232.15 acres of land. The possession of the said land was taken on 27.3.1989 as per Rapat Roznamcha appended with the writ petition as Annexure P.1. Another 52.01 acres of land was acquired by the State Government vide notification dated 30.4.1998 under Section 6 of the Act and possession thereof was taken on 1.10.1999 vide Rapat Roznamcha (Annexure P.2). After the possession was taken, the development plans have been prepared and in such plans, the land has been reserved for recreational zone and the mutation has been entered in favour of Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short `HUDA). It is pointed out that HUDA has now released land in favour of private respondents No. 5 to 7 and the mutation entered in their favour in contravention of Section 48 of the Act. It is alleged that apart from respondents No. 5 to 7, land of another 23 co-sharers was acquired, but the land has been released in favour of respondents No. 5 to 7 only. It was, thus, alleged that the release of the land in favour of private respondents No. 5 to 7, is mala-fide and due to political pressure and that the remaining co- sharers would not be able to get the plots under the Oustees Quota/Policy. It is, thus, alleged that not only the loss of public money has been caused, but the co-sharers have been also deprived of their right under the Oustees Quota. A written statement has been filed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate Haryana, pointing out that Award No. 6 dated 27.3.1989 and Award No. 1 dated 1.10.1999, in respect of land was made in consequence of the notifications under the Act, dated 26.8.1988 and 30.4.1998, respectively. It was alleged that the petitioner has personal interest. A written statement has been filed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate Haryana, pointing out that Award No. 6 dated 27.3.1989 and Award No. 1 dated 1.10.1999, in respect of land was made in consequence of the notifications under the Act, dated 26.8.1988 and 30.4.1998, respectively. It was alleged that the petitioner has personal interest. It was also pointed out that the land has been released in favour of respondents No. 5 to 7 by the Ministerial Committee, after considering the request of the land owners. It was denied that any right of other co-sharers was infringed. 3. In a written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 5 to 7, it was pointed out that the petitioner is a disgruntled ex-employee of Government of Haryana, who has been dismissed from service. The present writ petition has been filed without disclosing as to how and in what manner, the same has been preferred in public interest. The petitioner has not disclosed the details of exemplary social work being done by him so as to lend some credence to the assertions of the petitioner being a public spirited person and his concern for the welfare of the general public. Reliance was placed upon Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and others, 2004(2) SCT 494 : (2004)3 SCC 363, wherein it has been held that there must be a real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and concrete or credible basis for maintaining a cause before the Court and not merely an adventure of a knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extra-ordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona-fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of the public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of Fundamental Rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique considerations. 4. It was further pointed out that the land was released vide order dated 12.11.1999 in respect of which Award was announced on 1.10.1999, without notice to the said respondents. 4. It was further pointed out that the land was released vide order dated 12.11.1999 in respect of which Award was announced on 1.10.1999, without notice to the said respondents. It is also pointed out that an Ahsram under the name and style of `Deep Manav Sewa Ahsram for maintaining Orphanage, Old Age Home and Knitting Centre for poor and destitute was being run since June, 1991 and that the objections were filed under Section 5-A of the Act, which fact was noticed by the Land Acquisition Collector in his report. 5. In the replication to the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 5 to 7, the petitioner has asserted that his services were wrongly and illegally terminated on the ground that some record pertaining to the land acquisition was not traceable. It is also pointed out that he has challenged his termination and Regular Second Appeal No. 222 of 2001 is pending consideration before this Court. He has also asserted that he has made various complaints on the basis of which this Court has taken cognizance and issued directions and, therefore, the present petition, in public interest, has been filed pointing out the gross misuse of public money. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and find that the petitioner lacks bona-fide in prosecuting the present writ petition in public interest. From the perusal of the record of Regular Second Appeal No. 222 of 2001, it appears that the petitioner, while working as Kanungo, was served with a memorandum on 6.10.1976 proposing to take action against him under Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. The allegations included that of illegal gratification; creation of false record/evidence and destruction of office record. After conducting an inquiry, an order for removal of the petitioner from service, was passed by the Administrator, HUDA on 30.10.1986. The appeal against the order of removal was considered by the Personnel Committee consisting of the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana; Secretary, Town & Country Planning and the Chief Administrator, HUDA, and consequently dismissed. The Civil Suit filed by the petitioner, challenging his removal, was dismissed on 24.8.1994 and the appeal against the said order was also dismissed on 18.7.2000. Regular Second Appeal No. 222 of 2001 is pending consideration before this Court. The Civil Suit filed by the petitioner, challenging his removal, was dismissed on 24.8.1994 and the appeal against the said order was also dismissed on 18.7.2000. Regular Second Appeal No. 222 of 2001 is pending consideration before this Court. Without going into the merits of the contentions raised and findings recorded, the fact remains that the petitioner has been removed from service on account of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Such person cannot be said to have a genuine or bona-fide public interest. The present petition appears to be an action out of grudge and ill-will against the functionaries of the State Government. The petitioner has alleged himself to be a social worker, but in the name of social work, what has been alleged in the rejoinder is, filing of complaints against certain public authorities. May be, in the absence of the information regarding removal of the petitioner, we would have examined the action of the State Government in releasing of the land under Section 48 of the Act. But in the present case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is a person, who lacks credibility and has initiated action not out of any bona-fide and genuine public interest. The petitioner is an unscrupulous litigant and has filed the present writ petition in order to satisfy his personal grudge. Such person is not entitled to be granted any indulgence so as to maintain purity in the justice dispensation system. Consequently, we dismiss the present writ petition. No costs.