Judgment :- T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. This writ petition by way of public interest litigation has been filed seeking a mandamus directing respondents 3 and 4 to invoke the Escheat Act to declare the land situate at Thiruvanmiyur Village, Chennai comprised in Survey Nos.68/1, 68/3, 68/4 and 69/1 admeasuring 0.38 acres, 1.49 acres, 0.43 acres and 1.81 acres respectively, altogether 4.04 acres, as Government land. 2. The petitioner is a practising Advocate and is a resident of Vettuvankeni Village. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid land, which is situated in the prime location of the city within a distance of 800 metres from Old Mahabalipuram Road abutting two major arterial roads at Thiruvanmiyur, belongs to the Government. He has stated that about 10 months back, while he was returning to home at late evening passing through the Thiruvanmiyur signal, he noticed heavy earthmoving machines and huge lorries working relentlessly to demolish as well as clearing debris from the said land. When he asked the petty street vendors as to whether the Government was carrying out any work or any Government Project was undertaken, he was informed that some private persons with strong political background, money power and muscle power acquired the said land in a suspicious manner and are carrying out the said work. Thereafter, on 16.7.2012, when he went to his office, he found two envelopes addressed to his name at the doorsteps, enclosing two documents, viz., a copy of 'A' Register and a copy of the letter dated 10.10.2012 issued by the sixth respondent. Further, on 20.7.2012, he came to know that a bi-weekly magazine, viz., 'Nakeeran' published an article about the land particularly as to how the ninth respondent encroached upon the said land under the guise of genuine purchaser. Consequent upon the said publication, since he came to know that the ninth respondent fenced the entire land in tin metal sheets with surveillance cameras on all sides of boundary along with armed guards round the clock, he issued notice to the fifth and ninth respondents to hand over the said land to the Government, for utilizing the same for public purpose on the ground that the ninth respondent has grabbed the said Government land by misusing the power of the fifth respondent to create documents to get patta for the land in the name of the ninth respondent. It is alleged that the ninth respondent is said to have prepared a sale deed under the guise of the genuine purchaser and submitted the same for registration before the sixth respondent, who in turn, asked the ninth respondent to produce the supporting documents to prove title of the land from their vendors. Since the same could not be produced by the ninth respondent, the sale deed was not registered and was given pending Registration Number as P.No.448 of 2011. Thereafter, the ninth respondent filed a writ petition being W.P.No.24022 of 2011 seeking a mandamus to register and release the sale deed. Pursuant to the order, dated 30.10.2011 passed by this Court in the said writ petition, the said sale deed was registered as Document No.10756 of 2011, dated 12.12.2011 by the sixth respondent, which remained unchallenged so far. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that despite the fact that the 'A' Register stands in the name of Usha and Rahini, no patta has been registered in any one of those names and moreover the fifth respondent does not have any records to prove that the land belongs to private persons. It is stated that for the past 120 years, since no person claimed any legal possession or title over the land, in the absence of any patta or related documents, the fifth respondent should have treated the land as the one belonging to the Government. It is further stated that the ninth respondent filed an application for grant of patta on the basis of the sale certificate, dated 29.2.1892 issued in O.S.No.290 of 1883 on the file of the Munsif Court, Poonamallee, which is the only document for claiming title over the land. It is stated that the said sale certificate could not be certified as an authenticated document by the Judicial Department, since the related documents were destroyed. Further, since the ninth respondent, neither in the sale deed recital nor before the fifth respondent, produced any material to prove that the vendors of the land are either legal heirs of Usha and Rahini or M.T.Kuppusamy Naicker, whose names were found mentioned in the said sale certificate, the fifth respondent ought to have invoked the Escheat Act to treat the said land as Government Land. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent - revenue authority, instead of invoking the Escheat Act to declare the land as the Government Land, has made mutation of patta in favour of the ninth respondent and hence, by filing this writ petition in the garb of public interest litigation, he has sought for a direction to declare the said land as the Government Land. 4. We have heard Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appeairng for the petitioner and Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 6, and perused the affidavit and other documents contained in the typed set. 5. At the very outset we are constrained to express our view in the light of Supreme Court decisions with regard to the scope of a writ petition, which is filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. The term "Public Interest" literally means a matter of public or general interest and does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. When there is material to show that a petition is styled as a "Public Interest Litigation" is nothing but a camaflogue to foster personal disputes, such petition should not be entertained. In the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 280 , the Supreme Court observed as under: “12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, courts must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.” 6. The concept of Public Interest Litigation has been evolved for the welfare of the people who are in a disadvantaged position and are unable to knock the doors of the Court. The Court is Constitutionally bound to protect the Fundamental Rights of such disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfill its Constitutional promises. Reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India reported in (1982) 2 S.C.C. 494 . 7. In the case of Balco Employees' Union v. Union of India reported in (2002) 2 S.C.C. 333 , the Supreme Court, while discussing the scope and object of Public Interest Litigation, observed as follows: “77. Public interest litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. It will not be incorrect to say that it is primarily the Judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was a dire need for it. At that stage, it was intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal redress were required to be espoused. At that stage, it was intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal redress were required to be espoused. PIL was not meant to be adversarial in nature and was to be a cooperative and collaborative effort of the parties and the court so as to secure justice for the poor and the weaker sections of the community who were not in a position to protect their own interests. Public interest litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz. "litigation in the interest of the public". 79. There is, in recent years, a feeling which is not without any foundation that public interest litigation is now tending to become publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation and has a tendency to be counterproductive. 80. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a public-spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such persons who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the court for relief. There have been, in recent times, increasingly instances of abuse of PIL. Therefore, there is a need to re-emphasize the parameters within which PIL can be resorted to by a Petitioner and entertained by the court. This aspect has come up for consideration before this Court and all we need to do is to recapitulate and re-emphasize the same. 88. It will be seen that whenever the Court has interfered and given directions while entertaining PIL it has mainly been where there has been an element of violation of Article 21 or of human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged who are unable to come to court due to some disadvantage. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by the courts. We may, however, add that public interest litigation was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by the courts. We may, however, add that public interest litigation was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. No doubt a person personally aggrieved by any such decision, which he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a court of law, but, a public interest litigation at the behest of a stranger ought not to be entertained. Such a litigation cannot per se be on behalf of the poor and the downtrodden, unless the court is satisfied that there has been violation of Article 21 and the persons adversely affected are unable to approach the court. 8. In the case of Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India reported in 1989 Supp (1) S.C.C. 251, the Supreme Court observed that the disputes between two warring groups purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a public interest litigation. 9. Similarly, in the case of Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal reported in (1987) 2 S.C.C. 295 , the Supreme Court observed thus: “61. It is only when courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action or when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the underdog and the neglected. I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants.” 10. In the case of R and M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and Ors. Reported in 2005 (3) SCC 91 , the Supreme Court observed as under: “24. Public interest litigation is no doubt a very useful handle for redressing the grievances of the people but unfortunately lately it has been abused by some interested persons and it has brought a very bad name. Reported in 2005 (3) SCC 91 , the Supreme Court observed as under: “24. Public interest litigation is no doubt a very useful handle for redressing the grievances of the people but unfortunately lately it has been abused by some interested persons and it has brought a very bad name. Courts should be very slow in entertaining petitions involving public interest: in very rare cases where the public at large stand to suffer. This jurisdiction is meant for the purpose of coming to the rescue of the downtrodden and not for the purpose of serving private ends. It has now become common for unscrupulous people to serve their private ends and jeopardize the rights of innocent people so as to wreak vengeance for their personal ends. This has become very handy to the developers and in matters of public contracts. In order to serve their professional rivalry they utilize the service of the innocent people or organization in filing public interest litigation. The courts are sometimes persuaded to issue certain directions without understanding the implications and giving a handle in the hands of the authorities to misuse it. Therefore, the courts should not exercise this jurisdiction lightly but should exercise in very rare and few cases involving public interest of a large number of people who cannot afford litigation and are made to suffer at the hands of the authorities. The parameters have already been laid down in a decision of this Court in the case of Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India wherein this Court has issued guidelines as to what kind of public interest litigation should be entertained and all the previous cases were reviewed by this Court. It was observed as under: 77. Public interest litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. It will not be incorrect to say that it is primarily the judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was a dire need for it. At that stage, it was intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal redress were required to be espoused. At that stage, it was intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal redress were required to be espoused. PIL was not meant to be adversarial in nature and was to be a cooperative and collaborative effort of the parties and the court so as to secure justice for the poor and the weaker sections of the community who were not in a position to protect their own interests. Public interest litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz. litigation in the interest of the public. 78. While PIL initially was invoked mostly in cases connected with the relief to the people and the weaker sections of the society and in areas where there was violation of human rights under Article 21, but with the passage of time, petitions have been entertained in other spheres, Prof. S.B. Sathe has summarized the extent of the jurisdiction which has now been exercised in the following words: PIL may, therefore, be described as satisfying one or more of the following parameters. These are not exclusive but merely descriptive: - Where the concerns underlying a petition are not individualist but are shared widely by a large number of people (bonded labour, undertrial prisoners, prison inmates). - Where the affected persons belong to the disadvantaged sections of society (women, children, bonded labour, unorganized labour etc.). - Where judicial law-making is necessary to avoid exploitation (inter-country adoption, the education of the children of prostitutes). - Where judicial intervention is necessary for the protection of the sanctity of democratic institutions (independence of the judiciary, existence of grievances redressal forums). - Where administrative decisions related to development are harmful to the environment and jeopardize people?s right to natural resources such as air or water. 79. There is, in recent years, a feeling which is not without any foundation that public interest litigation is now tending to become publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation and has a tendency to be counterproductive. 80. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. 79. There is, in recent years, a feeling which is not without any foundation that public interest litigation is now tending to become publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation and has a tendency to be counterproductive. 80. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a public-spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such persons who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the court for relief. There have been in recent times, increasingly instances of abuse of PIL. Therefore, there is a need to re-emphasize the parameters within which PIL can be resorted to by a Petitioner and entertained by the court. This aspect has come up for consideration before this Court and all we need to do is to recapitulate and re-emphasize the same?.” 11. Coming back to the instant case, it is evidently clear that the petitioner is challenging the transfer of land in question by the Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of the land owners. The petitioner has questioned the authority of the legal heirs of the land owners to enter into agreement and to sell the property. A copy of the sale deed is annexed with the typed set filed by the petitioner from where it appears that the property originally belongs to Dr.M.T.Kuppusamy Naicker S/o.M.Thirumalai Naicker, who purchased the same by a Court Auction held in O.S.No.290/1883 dated 26.08.1891 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Poonamallee. After the death of Dr.M.T.Kuppusamy Naicker, his widow, sons and daughters inherited the property and on their death, the persons who inherited the property as heirs and successors have finally sold the property. The said transfer, in fact, has been challenged by the petitioner. The Sale Certificates issued by the Court of Munsif after the purchaser purchased the property in the Court Auction has also been questioned. In our considered opinion, firstly the petitioner has no right to question the title of the auction purchaser, their heirs and successors, and secondly, the dispute that has been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot and shall not be treated as public interest litigation. 12. In our considered opinion, firstly the petitioner has no right to question the title of the auction purchaser, their heirs and successors, and secondly, the dispute that has been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot and shall not be treated as public interest litigation. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, we hold that the writ petition filed as public interest litigation is wholly misconceived, mala fide and not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.