Per Mansoor, J.— 1. This public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioners on behalf of Indra Nagar, Iqbal Colony, Sonawar Welfare Committee for quashment of Auction Notice bearing DIPK No. 2311 published in newspaper on 25.05.2012 in respect of Evacuee land, and to direct the respondents to develop the land measuring 15 Kanals and 18 marlas covered under Survey Nos. 239, 240, 249, 722, 820, 821, 822, 823, 824 and 825 situated at Estate Sonawar, Srinagar, into a public park/playground, on the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition. 2. Precisely, the case of the petitioners is that one Mohammad Mehraj-ud-din was owner of the land in question before he migrated to POK in 1947. It is alleged that said owner of the land, before migrating to POK, had donated it to the public and, in fact, it is being used as a Public Park and playground by the residents, particularly, children of the area. 3. It appears that there arose a dispute between the Defence and the Custodian Department over the land in question, which was ultimately settled and resolved by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, vide order dated 14.05.2011. It is relevant to reproduce the last paragraph of the said order, which reads as under: "I have gone through the records, reports, and papers available on the file. Heard the counsel and all other concerned/interested in the matter. From the perusal of all this it reveals that land measuring 15 kanals and 18 marla comprising survey Nos. 239, 240, 249, 722, 823, 822, 825, 824, 821 & 820 stands mutated vide mutation order No. 475 in favour of Mohammad Mehrajuddin and after has reported migration to POK his land has accordingly been notified as Evacuee property under the provisions of j&K Evacuees (Admonition of Property) Act, 2006. The Defence Deptt. despite challenging the said notification agitating against same before competent forum under the relevant Act in gross violation of the Provisions of the said Act started fencing the disputed land despite requests/reminders from Evacuee Department in response to the Judgments of the Hon'ble High Court dated 26.07.2006, i.e., to resolve the issue through consultation instead litigations over the matter etc. despite challenging the said notification agitating against same before competent forum under the relevant Act in gross violation of the Provisions of the said Act started fencing the disputed land despite requests/reminders from Evacuee Department in response to the Judgments of the Hon'ble High Court dated 26.07.2006, i.e., to resolve the issue through consultation instead litigations over the matter etc. Under the circumstances expressed hereinabove, the fepresentation is accordingly disposed off with the directions to the Custodian General to take the possession of the land on spot under the Provisions of the relevant Act/Laws." 4. What is gathered from the reproduction aforementioned is that the Custodian Department has taken over the possession of the land in question in terms of the directions of the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, converted the same into plots of different sizes and issued an Auction Notice for allotment of the said plots, which is questioned by the petitioners on the ground that the said land is being used by the residents of the area as a Park/playground. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Auction notice be quashed and the respondents be directed to earmark the land in question to be used as a public park and playground for the residents of the area. 5. The question that arises is as to whether there is any material placed on record by the petitioners even to prima facie make out that the said land is a public park or playground. It needs to be mentioned here that even on the own showing of the petitioners, the land in question is an Evacuee property and is in the custody of the Custodian Department as per the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006. 6. The petitioners have not been able to show from the averments made in the petition any interests, much less a legal interest in the land in question, or was earmarked as a public park or playground by any competent authority. On the other hand, there appears to have been some claim laid on the land in question by the Defence Authorities, which has been settled by the Divisional Commissioner. 7. The petitioners have also not spelt out their locus to the satisfaction of the Court to file the instant public interest litigation. On the other hand, there appears to have been some claim laid on the land in question by the Defence Authorities, which has been settled by the Divisional Commissioner. 7. The petitioners have also not spelt out their locus to the satisfaction of the Court to file the instant public interest litigation. The petitioners, admittedly, are residents of the locality, rather the persons residing around the land in question. In the disguise of this public interest litigation, they seem to be actually pursuing their own cause. It is settled law that a petitioner who brings a public interest litigation must be a public spirited person. Further, in order to entertain a public interest litigation, the petitioners have to place sufficient material on record to establish their claim. If no record, laying a factual foundation for his averments on the basis of which such a person claims the reliefs, is brought to the notice of the Court, the petition merits dismissal. Reference in this connection may be made to the apex Court judgement in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1989 . It is relevant to reproduce paragraph II of the judgment hereunder: "11. Strict Rules of pleading may not apply in PIL, however, there must be sufficient material in the petition on the basis of which Court may proceed. The PIL litigant has to lay a factual foundation for his averments on the basis of which such a person claims the reliefs. Information furnished by him should not be vague and indefinite. Proper pleadings are necessary to meet the requirements of the principles of natural justice. Even in PIL, the litigant cannot approach the Court to have a fishing or roving enquiry. He cannot claim to have a chance to establish his claim. However, the technicalities of the rules of pleading cannot be made applicable vigorously. Pleadings prepared by a layman must be construed generously as he lacks standard of accuracy and precision particularly when a legal wrong is caused to a determinate class..." 8. Apart from that, a writ of mandamus cannot be sought by medium of Public Interest Litigation to direct the State to earmark/allot the land for purposes of a public park or playground. It is the prerogative of the Executive and not of the Court. 9. Apart from that, a writ of mandamus cannot be sought by medium of Public Interest Litigation to direct the State to earmark/allot the land for purposes of a public park or playground. It is the prerogative of the Executive and not of the Court. 9. The apex Court again in a case titled P. Seshadri v. S. Mangati Gopal Reddy, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1883 , has held that PIL is a weapon which must be used with great care and caution. 10. In the aforementioned backdrop and in the totality of the circumstances, the petitioners have failed to carve out a case for admission of the writ petition. As a result, the writ petition merits dismissal in limine. We do so accordingly. Dismissed along with all CMP. However, there will be no order as to costs. 11. Registry is directed to communicate this order in its entirety to the respondents.