JUDGMENT : Anant S. Dave, J. 1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. "1. Petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of Public Interest Litigation and it is stated that petitioners have no personal interest and this petition is filed for the benefits of residents, tenants and state exchequer whose funds have been siphoned off while exercising powers under provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (In Short Act, 1894). 2. The subject land in question for which this Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) is preferred was acquired for the purpose of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and mainly 3 villages viz; Manad, Eksal and Kesrol of Taluka Vaghra, District Bharuch where the land is situated and for about more than 100 years back, in the year 1877, forefathers of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were allotted such land on the lease of 999 years. 2.1 However, certain facts are stated by the petitioners about litigation undertaken earlier under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, which attained finality upto this Court, when order passed by learned Single Judge by which Writ Petition came to be rejected against subordinate authorities in tenancy proceedings, finally came to be dismissed when Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. 2.2 However, according to petitioners, when powers were invoked under various provisions of Land Acquisition Act, viz.; issuance of Section 4 and 6 notification, award under section 11 and compensation i.e. paid amount not only illegal exercise of powers but defrauding public exchequer and causing loss of Revenue to the State Government. It is categorically stated and so submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that subject land given under lease for a period of 999 years by the then British Government for which no power could have been exercised under Land Acquisition Act. Meaning thereby, for acquiring its own land, the authorities of State Government has passed various orders and issued notification and even compensation is also paid which is contrary to law and, therefore, prayers in paragraph 12 (A) and 12 (B) which reads as under, needs to be granted. Meaning thereby, for acquiring its own land, the authorities of State Government has passed various orders and issued notification and even compensation is also paid which is contrary to law and, therefore, prayers in paragraph 12 (A) and 12 (B) which reads as under, needs to be granted. "12(A) be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent authorities to inquire regarding payment made in pursuance of the awards at Annexure-B collectively to this petition to the private individual for the Government lands and to take appropriate action against all the erring officers and recover the amount from the officers and the concerned persons; 12(B) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships will be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to take immediate action to protect the amount paid for compensation under the Act to the private individual for the lands of the State Government;" 3. Upon issuance of notice, parties have filed their pleadings in the form of affidavit in reply, affidavit in rejoinder, additional affidavits and so on. However, upon noticing certain factual aspects, this Court on 10.3.2016 passed the following order. "This Writ Petition (PIL) is filed by one Kanaksinh Vithalbhai Parmar and another seeking directions to the respondents to inquire about payment made by way of compensation pursuant to award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, GIDC, Bharuch, dated 10.05.2013 under Land Acquisition Act, which is produced at Annexure B to the petition. 2. During the course of hearing, it is brought to our notice that some of the lands in question were covered by the award, father of petitioner No. 1 was claiming tenancy rights and contested the acquisition proceedings and awards passed therein. As the claim of the father of petitioner No. 1 was negatived by the authorities and also the Revenue Tribunal the matter came to this Court by way of Special Civil Application which was ultimately disposed of as per consent terms. Father of petitioner No. 1 has received more than Rs. 40,00,000/- through his Power of Attorney. Thereafter, review application was also filed which ended in dismissal by order dated 14.12.2012. Civil Suit was also filed by father of petitioner No. 1 in which no injunction was granted. 3. Father of petitioner No. 1 has received more than Rs. 40,00,000/- through his Power of Attorney. Thereafter, review application was also filed which ended in dismissal by order dated 14.12.2012. Civil Suit was also filed by father of petitioner No. 1 in which no injunction was granted. 3. Present petitioners claim that they were not concerned with father of petitioner No. 1 and he is independently pursuing those proceedings and the present Writ Petition (PIL) is nothing to do with those proceedings. 4. Prima facie, we are of the view that this petition is an offshoot of earlier proceedings which were pending for several years. Ultimately, when review petition was filed this Court has also rejected the same, by recording a finding that the petitioner was abusing process of the Court. As we feel that this petition is another attempt to get over earlier proceedings, we direct the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with the Registry within two weeks from today and produce proof of such deposit along with affidavit in compliance of Rule 3(a) to (k) of the High Court of Gujarat (Practice & Procedure for Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010. Post this matter on 23.03.2016." 1. Apropos, additional affidavit dated 23.3.2016 is filed by one of the petitioners. In the above affidavit, it is reiterated that requirement of rules for undertaking Public Interest Litigation in this High Court framed pursuant to the decision in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Baldev Chaufal [2010)3 SCC 402] are followed. The above additional affidavit is in continuation of earlier affidavit dated 8.3.2016, whereby, the petitioners stated that entire acquisition proceedings were made with a view to enrich private respondents by making payment of more than 100 crores for the land belonging to the Government. 4.1 In answer to the above affidavit dated 8.3.2016 and 23.3.2016, respondent Nos. 4 to 6 contravened allegations levelled therein and a detailed affidavit is filed on 5.4.2016, so as to indicate that in earlier proceedings cheques were issued towards compensation of the land in question for which entries were made in the Bank Account of father of the petitioner. 4.1 In answer to the above affidavit dated 8.3.2016 and 23.3.2016, respondent Nos. 4 to 6 contravened allegations levelled therein and a detailed affidavit is filed on 5.4.2016, so as to indicate that in earlier proceedings cheques were issued towards compensation of the land in question for which entries were made in the Bank Account of father of the petitioner. 4.2 As against above, additional affidavit in rejoinder dated 11.4.2016 is filed by the petitioner denying and stating that an attempt made by private respondent/s to state that power of attorney holder received the payments, only, amount by cheque dated 12.10.2010 for Rs. 1,51,000/- and dated 6.11.2011 for Rs. 6,00,000/- is paid by the power of attorney. According to petitioner, it is not correct that the amount for compensation of Rs. 43,53,775/- is received. 1. Following facts viz; about earlier litigation so stated in the affidavit dated 3.12.2014 filed by Resident Additional Collector, Bharuch remain undisputed. Paragraph Nos. 5 to 13: "5. I say and submit that the lands held by Jahangirji Manekji Contractor were exempted from the provisions of the Agriculture Land Ceiling Act vide Government Revenue Department Order dated 09/02/1968. 6. I say and submit that agricultural labourers working on the fields belonging to Jahangirji Manekji Contractor had claimed tenancy rights under section70B of Tenancy Act but it was rejected by Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, Bharuch. In Appeal, Deputy Collector has also rejected their Appeal. In Revision, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has also rejected their Revision Application on the ground that as provided in section 88 of Tenancy Act, a tenancy right cannot be created on the land held on lease. Further it was observed by the Tribunal that provisions of section 1 to 87 do not apply to the land held on lease. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of Tribunal, agricultural labourers preferred Special Civil Application No. 5377, 5378 and 5381 of 1995 at High Court of Gujarat. 7. In Special Civil Application No. 5377, 5378 and 5381 of 1995, agricultural labourers arrived at the settlement with the land holder Jahangirji Manekji Contractor. The consent terms were drawn and undertaking was executed in favour of land holder which was taken on record by the Hon'ble High Court. 7. In Special Civil Application No. 5377, 5378 and 5381 of 1995, agricultural labourers arrived at the settlement with the land holder Jahangirji Manekji Contractor. The consent terms were drawn and undertaking was executed in favour of land holder which was taken on record by the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court also directed that both the parties shall abide the consent terms and an undertaking which were accepted by the petitioners and their family members/legal heirs. The copy of the order dated 30/08/2010 is annexed as 'Annexure-A'. 8. As per the consent terms and an undertaking decided in Special Civil Application No. 5377, 5378 and 5381 of 1995, the compensation was paid to the petitioners of the said Special Civil Applications including the father of the present petitioner No. 1. In this way, petitioner No. 1 is the beneficiary of having compensation paid by Jahangirji Manekji Contractor and hence he is not entitled to file the present public interest litigation before the Hon'ble High Court. 9. I say and submit that the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 5377, 5378 and 5381 of 1995, filed Misc. Civil Application for Review No. 1782/2012 and 1702/2012 in SCA/5377/1995 which was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide its Order dated 28/09/2012. The Hon'ble High Court observed that there is no evidence of any fraud done by Jahangirji Manekji Contractor in the consent terms. Also, these tenants have dragged Jahangirji Manekji Contractor in litigations with an oblique motive. And, thus the petitioners were fined Rs. 5,000/-. The copy of the Order is annexed as 'Annexure - B'. 10. I say and submit that the petitioners of Misc. Civil Application No. 1702/2012 have filed LPA/1311/2012 wherein the Hon'ble High Court passed an order directing the petitioner to deposit the entire amount received from Jahangirji Manekji Contractor by way of compensation. This order was challenged by the petitioners by way of Misc. Civil Application No. 612/2013 which was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court against them. 11. I say and submit that Government in Revenue Department declared notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire land of Jahangirji Manekji Contractor for setting up a housing colony for Dahej Industrial Estate. Civil Application No. 612/2013 which was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court against them. 11. I say and submit that Government in Revenue Department declared notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire land of Jahangirji Manekji Contractor for setting up a housing colony for Dahej Industrial Estate. Land holder, Jahangirji Manekji Contractor had given consent for acquisition of his land and on that base land acquisition officer declared consent award under section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and paid compensation to land holder Jahangirji Manekji Contractor taking into consideration the provisions contained in sub section 16 of section 3 of Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 to the effect that he falls within the definition of land holder. It is not necessary to publish Notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before passing consent Award. Also, the land acquisition officer had taken into consideration the judgment imparted by Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 721 of 1967 which states that "even though the land was granted by Government to the petitioner on the strict condition that on the event of requiring the land for any reason whatsoever, the grantee shall surrender the land to the Government without claiming any compensation. However, the land was put to acquisition for public purpose. And, Supreme Court of India rejected the action of Land acquisition officer who denied to give compensation to grantee." In light of this judgment the Land Acquisition Officer had paid compensation to the land holder Mr. Jahangirji Manekji Contractor and the possession of the acquired land was taken up by Land Acquisition Officer and handed over to acquiring body Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation. The copy of Notification under section 4, section 6, Consent Award and possession receipt is annexed herewith as "Annexure - C." 12. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 5377, 5378 and 5381 of 1995 also filed SCA/3070/2013 and SCA 3075/2013 by which they challenged the compensation given to Jahangirji Manekji Contractor. The said matters were dismissed but again re-called by Hon'ble High Court. Also, they filed SCA/15355/2012 and SCA/15356/2012 whereby they prayed to the Hon'ble High Court for excluding the lands of Jahangirji Manekji Contractor from the land acquisition proceedings which were dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. But, SCA/15355/2012 has been recalled by the Hon'ble High Court and is pending. 13. Also, they filed SCA/15355/2012 and SCA/15356/2012 whereby they prayed to the Hon'ble High Court for excluding the lands of Jahangirji Manekji Contractor from the land acquisition proceedings which were dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. But, SCA/15355/2012 has been recalled by the Hon'ble High Court and is pending. 13. I say and submit that it is also learnt that petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 5377, 5378 and 5381 of 1995 also filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 335/13, 336/13 and 337/13 at Civil Court, Bharuch against Jahangirji Manekji Contractor challenging the possession of the land even though the entire land acquisition proceedings have been concluded and the possession is with Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation. The Injunction Applications of the petitioners have been rejected by Civil Court. The copy of the Order is annexed as "Annexture-D." 5.1 Thus, annexure with the above affidavit and consent terms filed in the Writ proceedings where power of attorney of father of the petitioner was signatory and no action taken against power of attorney remain undisputed. 5.2 By filing affidavit in rejoinder on 22.12.2014, the petitioner has reiterated nature of the subject land, initiation of proceedings under Land Acquisition Act and committing fraud on public exchequer and that the petitioners residing separately and disputing settlement arrived at between the private respondents and father of the petitioner through power of attorney and that father of the petitioner was not a 'Karta' of HUF. 5.3 Again, on 21.1.2015, private respondents reiterated about rejection of Writ Petition by this Court at the behest of the father of the petitioner and payment of compensation after determination of price by CEPT University. Thus, all the above proceedings were terminated and even Review Applications filed therein were also rejected." 2. In the afore-mentioned background of facts, invocation of Writ Jurisdiction by the petitioner by filing this Public Interest Litigation on the ground that subject land in question for which lease was given in favour of private respondent/s and payment by way of compensation under Land Acquisition Act could not have been made for acquiring its own land is not only an after-thought, but, an evil design on the part of the petitioner to see that further amount is extracted from private respondent/s and wasting of precious time of this Court in pursuing this litigation for personal interest. From the record, following factual scenario about payment of compensation of Rs. From the record, following factual scenario about payment of compensation of Rs. 43,53,775/- which almost undisputed, particularly paragraph Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7 are reproduced hereunder: - "Paragraph No. 2: - I say as above because, the father of the petitioner No. 1 Vithal Soma Patel has been paid the amount by Mr. Ahmed Isha Ruwala, power of attorney of Vithal Soma Patel. According to the knowledge and information collected by me from the Account SB No. 2867 of the Bharuch District Cent. Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Market Yard Bharuch held in the name of Ahmed Isha Ruwala for the dates between 01.10.2010 to 31.12.2013, the father of the petitioner No. 1 seems to have been paid the following amount in cheques by Ahmed Isha Ruwala- A. 12.10.2010 Cheque No. 277667 Rs. 1,51,000/- B. 09.03.2011 Cheque No. 301647 Rs. 2,50,000/- C. 19.03.2011 Cheque No. 301897 Rs. 3,90,000/- D. 06.11.2011 Cheque No. 277668 Rs. 6,00,000/-I say and submit that bold statements are being made by the petitioner No. 1 time and again that no amount is paid to Vithal Soman Patel father of petitioner No. 1. I say that such an assertion is an incorrect statement on oath to the knowledge of petitioner No. 1. Paragraph No. 3: - I state that as far as the amount paid to the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court wherein consent terms were arrived at, the amount was paid vide two cheques from the account of Shri Jahangir Manekshaw Contractor being account No. 111010100496964 of Axis Bank, Vapi Branch, Vapi Gujarat being (1) Cheque No. 9904 dated 27.08.2010 for Rs. 8,70,755/- which was cleared on 20.09.2010 and (2) Cheque No. 610004 dated 26.02.2011 for Rs. 34,83,020/- which was cleared on 01.03.2011 totaling an amount of Rs. 43,53,775/-. Hence, it is clear from the above that, the present proceeding in the name and style of Public Interest Litigation is a gross abuse of process of the Court. Paragraph No. 6: - As far as the additional affidavit dated 23.03.2016 is concerned the petitioner No. 1 has taken a somersault and has now taken a stand that, the petitioner is residing at Bharuch and has than stated that originally he is residing at village - Eksal. I state that as regards the statement of the petitioner that Rs. Paragraph No. 6: - As far as the additional affidavit dated 23.03.2016 is concerned the petitioner No. 1 has taken a somersault and has now taken a stand that, the petitioner is residing at Bharuch and has than stated that originally he is residing at village - Eksal. I state that as regards the statement of the petitioner that Rs. 3,00,000/- is received from the Bharuch District Co-operative Bank Limited, there is no answer to the receipt of amount of (1) Rs. 1,51,000/- on 12.10.2010, (2) Rs. 6,00,000/- on 06.04.2011 and (3) Rs. 3,00,000/- on 27.11.2012. I also state and submit that there are at-least 18 transactions in the petitioners name as can be seen from page 483 from 10.04.2010 to 30.12.2013. Paragraph No. 7: - I state and submit that, the petitioner No. 1. Is repeatedly making false statements on oath, misleading the Hon'ble Court by not disclosing correct facts. I say this because from the account of Mr. Ahmed Isha Ruwala, power of attorney of Vithalbhai Somabhai father of petitioner No. 1 several amounts have been paid to Vithalbhai Somabhai Patel being (a) Rs. 1,51,000/- debited on 12.10.2010, (b) Rs. 25,00,000/- debited on 09.03.2011, (c) Rs. 3,90,000/- debited on 19.03.2011 and (d) Rs. 6,00,000/- debited on 06.04.2011 in all Rs. 13,91,000/- from the account of Ahmed Isha Ruwala being account No. SB 2867 of the Bharuch Dist. Cent. Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Marketing Yard, Bharuch. A litigation undertaken by father of the petitioner himself under tenancy proceedings, civil suits and Writ Petitions came to be terminated against his father and the present proceedings is nothing but an attempt to re-agitate his grievance which is in this petition as a Public Interest Litigation. However, if the veil is lifted on the strength of record available, one only conclusion which can be reached is the private interest of the petitioner. 6.1 As stated in the decision in the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal [supra], after analyzing various judgments permitting the Court to exercise the powers in Public Interest Litigation and to restrain the Apex Court laid down following general guidelines in 181, as under: "181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this court and other courts in a number of judgments. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this court and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:-- (1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter. (3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L. (4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations." 3. Thus, the facts stated hereinabove will go to show that the present Public Interest Litigation is not a bonafide Public Interest Litigation espousing any public cause and prayer with regard to inquiry or to take action against authorities of Government for the contentions raised about the subject land being lease land for which no compensation could have been paid under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act etc. cannot be gone into, at the behest of a person, who has failed upto this Court and other Courts and Forums established by law. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances and the careful perusal of the record, we are convinced that present Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) has no merit and as the petitioner has tried to espouse private cause in the guise of public interest, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner with the Registry is not to be returned and to be transferred to Gujarat High Court Legal Services committee, Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad towards cost. 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) stands dismissed. Notice discharged.