JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, ACJ.—The petitioner is a complainant. He filed a complaint satisfying the provisions of Section 95 (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) read with the relevant Rules framed thereunder. The main allegation was that the elected Pradhan has encroached a pond and illegally constructed over it the Panchayat Bhawan and Jachcha Bachcha Kendra. However, the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat through his counsel has contended before us that he has already been suspended and challenging such order of suspension, a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16083 of 2009 has been filed before this High Court. The writ petitioner herein is also a party to the said writ petition. 2. So far as the pond is concerned, it has been stated that no water is there in the pond for a considerable long period and in the record of consolidation the land is recorded as such and not as a pond. The concerned Tehsildar has made a complaint to that extent. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended before us that by an order of the Division Bench dated 26.8.2008 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43652 of 2008 (Vijmauti v. Commissioner Vindhyachal Division Mirzapur and others), an inquiry was allowed to continue against the petitioner of said writ petition. It is further recorded that if it is found that construction was illegal, appropriate amount be recovered from the Gram Pradhan and Gram Panchayat Adhikari. Demolition of Gram Panchayat was also urged but the Court held that the same is not warranted at this stage and that will depend upon the result of the inquiry. 3. However, by a letter dated 16th February, 2010, the concerned Chief Development Officer has directed that there should be a digging for making a pond upon some other land of Gram Panchayat in the village in view of the construction of Panchayat Bhawan and the Maternity Home, as above. By filing this writ petition, the writ petitioner contended that whatever action is required to be taken against the Pradhan that will be under Section 95(g) of the Act and Rules. The writ petition has been filed only for the purpose of having a pond which has been illegally filled up. By filing this writ petition, the writ petitioner contended that whatever action is required to be taken against the Pradhan that will be under Section 95(g) of the Act and Rules. The writ petition has been filed only for the purpose of having a pond which has been illegally filled up. He has cited before us a judgment of the Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and others, (2001) 6 SCC 496 , relying upon the penultimate paragraph, wherein it has been held that “the person who has constructed a house over and above a pond was directed to take away materials of the house which has been constructed on the said land. It was further directed that if they do not vacate the land, the official respondents will demolish the construction and get the possession of the land in accordance with law. State respondents were directed to restore the pond, develop and maintain the same as a recreational spot which will undoubtedly be in the best interest of the villagers. Further it will also help in maintaining ecological balance and protecting the environment in regard to which the Supreme Court has repeatedly expressed its concern. Such measures must begin at the grass-root level if they were to become the nation’s pride”. 4. Learned standing counsel has cited two Division Bench judgments of this Court wherein it was considered and held that the import of the Hinch Lal Tiwari’s case (supra) does not necessarily mean that removal of a person, even a trespasser, can be made, without following the procedure. The reference of these two judgements are dated 4th September, 2009 and 24th November, 2009 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45164 of 2009 and Writ Petition No. 61403 of 2009. 5. Learned standing counsel further said on the basis of the report of A.D.M. dated 30th September, 2009 that though the land was recorded as pond but on an inquiry he found that it is a land and the developments are there from before inclusive of Maternity Home which was built up earlier. 6. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that on the other hand, the A.D.M. (Finance) by its report, Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition, has stated that construction was wrongly made over the land which is recorded as pond. 7. 6. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that on the other hand, the A.D.M. (Finance) by its report, Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition, has stated that construction was wrongly made over the land which is recorded as pond. 7. Against these backgrounds, it is crystal clear before us that dispute with regard to the land in question is still existing and has not been finalized. Moreover, the construction, which is now available over the land, is not made for any private purpose and by any private party. A public office i.e. Panchayat Bhawan and a Maternity Home have already been constructed and if it is demolished without proper inquiry, scrutiny and hearing to the parties in this respect, it will also go against the public interest. Therefore, both the Panchayat Bhawan and the Maternity Home will also be available not only for ecological balance but also for public purposes. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha has cited a judgment of single Judge in Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(3) ADJ 35 (NOC) to satisfy the Court. In paragraph 5 of the said judgment, it has been held that “complainant cannot be a litigant, he could be, at the most examined as a witness in the inquiry but cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis’. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, it has been further held that “A member of the Gaon Sabha has been given a right to make a complaint along with the affidavit bringing to the notice that the allegations of misuse of powers and irregularities. The complaint, however, is not a prosecutor. The matter thereafter rests between the District Magistrate and the Pradhan. 9. It is true to say that in this context the District Magistrate is the proper person to hold an inquiry and pass an appropriate order. It is open for all the parties to approach him. But, so far as the ecological balance is concerned, the suggestion which has been given by the Chief Development Officer under its order dated 16th February, 2010 will serve the purpose. 10. According to the letter of Chief Development Officer, a pond is required to be dug immediately at a particular place within the Gram Panchayat to avoid the controversy. But, so far as the ecological balance is concerned, the suggestion which has been given by the Chief Development Officer under its order dated 16th February, 2010 will serve the purpose. 10. According to the letter of Chief Development Officer, a pond is required to be dug immediately at a particular place within the Gram Panchayat to avoid the controversy. This can be done to maintain the ecological balance as per the said letter, which appears to be backed by sound principles of law of ecological balance. 11. Now a days, various developments are being caused in the urban and rural areas and for the sake of constructions certain steps are being taken by the authorities even for removing trees and plants but the authorities or the Court of law are always directing to maintain the ecological balance by placing plants at appropriate places, which will maintain the ecological balance so that both the development as well as ecological balance cannot be suffered. 12. Therefore, the suggestion in the form of letter, as given by the Chief Development Officer, seems to be appropriate. Therefore, on the basis of that suggestion of Chief Development Officer, if the pond is being made, that can be done as expeditiously as possible. However, even having such suggestion for construction of pond in a place other than the place of pond which has been converted for the public purpose, if the writ petitioners feel aggrieved then it clearly indicates that in the back of making this writ petition, the public interest is not there but some sort of private interest is there, which cannot be encouraged by the Court. It is well settled that complainant cannot make such petitions and hence on both the accounts, we dismiss the writ petition filed in the form of Public Interest Litigation, however, without imposing any cost considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. In any event, passing of this order will in no way affect the right of the parties to approach the concerned District Magistrate for a decision in this respect, at the earliest. ————