ORDER Shrivastava, J. -- 1. This review petition is preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 4.10.2019 passed in W.P. No. 20404/2019. In the said writ petition, the following reliefs were sought:- ^^11-1 ;g fd] 'kkldh; Hkwfe ekStk xzke txukiqjk rglhy Xokfy;j ftyk Xokfy;j ¼eŒÁŒ½ fLFkr Hkwfe losZ Øekad 187] 183] 491] 492] 481] 482] 483] 485] 487] 488] 489] 490] 494] 498] 499] 500] 501] 502] 503] 524] dqy fdrk 19 dqy jdok 19 ch?kk 17 fcLok fefly canks cLr lEcr 1997 esa dkye ucaj 6 esa ekQh vkfr;sa ljdkj ntZ gSa fu'khFk dqekj eksnh }kjk izLrqr caVokjsa dk vkosnu tks vij rglhynkj o`Rr cgksM+kiqj Xokfy;j Ádj.k Øekad 9@v&27@2019&20 ds ;gka is'k fd;k gSa mDr tufgr ;kfpdk ds le{k fopkjk/khu Ádj.k Øekad 9@v&27@2019&20 dks vkxkeh dk;Zokgh djus ls jksdk tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxkA 11-2 ;g fd] mDr Hkwfe;ka ekQh vkSdkQ ljdkjh ds :i ntZ gSa blfy;s ;kfpdk Øekad 1425@2010 ,oa 1428@2010 t; flag vkfn fo:) fu'khFk dqekj eksnh esa ikfjr ,dy ihB dk vkns'k fnukad 7-03-2014 dks fujLr fd;s tkus dh d`ik djsaA 11-3 ;g fd ;kfpdkdrkZ ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls ÁkFkZuk djrk gSa fd mDr Ádj.k esa dh xbZ nks"kiw.kZ dk;Zokgh esa nks"kh O;fDr;ksa ds fo:) mfpr dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dk funsZ'k@vkns'k ikfjr djus dh d`ik djsa ,oa Hkw&ekfQk;ksa ds fo:) dBksj n.MkRed dk;Zokgh o vFkZn.M vkjksfir djus dh d`ik djsaA 11-4 ;g fd ;kfpdkdrkZ ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls ÁkFkZuk djrk gSa fd mijksDr lgk;rk ds vkykok U;k;fgr ,oa tufgr esa ;kfpdkdrkZ dks tks Hkh mfpr lgk;rk fnyk;k tkuk mfpr le>sa fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k Ánku djus dh d`ik djsaA 11-5 ;g fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; Xokfy;j [k.MihB Xokfy;j ¼eŒÁŒ½ }kjk leku rF; gksrs gq;s tufgr ;kfpdk Øekad 8540@ 2015 ¼ihŒvkbZŒ,yŒ½ lehj flag ,oa vU; fo:) e/; Áns'k ,oa vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 23 tuojh 2019 ds vuqlkj ÁLrqr tufgr ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh xbZ gSa pawfd mDr ÁLrqr tufgr ;kfpdk Hkh jketkudh eafnj dh ekQh vkSdkQ 'kkldh; Hkwfe gSa vkSj ifjfLFkfr leku gSa QdZ flQZ mDr Ádj.k esa i{kdkj iwoZ U;k;ewfrZ gSa ftUgksaus vius ÁHkko dk nq:i;ksx dj eafnj jketkudh dh Hkwfe dks fu;ksftr "kM;a= ls gM+ius dk dk;Z fd;k gSa tks orZeku esa Á;kljr gSaA** 2. It is observed in the impugned order that the record reveals that earlier the land in question was subject matter of dispute in W.P No. 1425/2010 and W.P. No. 1428/2010 and the writ petitions were disposed of by two separate orders passed on 7.3.2014 in the following terms : “Before preceding further, I would like to produce here the prayer Clause of the subsequent compromise application of I.A. No. 2469/14 in which the prayer made in the earlier application (I.A. No. 1034/14) is stated in explanatory manner. The same is as under: ^^1- fd mi;qZDr Hkwfe losZ Øekad 187@2 esa ls jdck 1-055 gsŒ esa ls 2 ch?kk 15 foLok] losZ Øekad 183 jdck 3 foLok] losZ Øekad 491 ,oa 492 esa ls 120 xq.kk 20 QhV vFkkZr 2400 oxZQqV jdck 0-052 gSDVs;j esa ls 0-021 gSDVs;j vFkkZr 2 foLok ;ksx 3 ch?kk ij fjLiksMsUV Øekad 2 ds uke ukekarj.k fd; tkus dk vkns'k Ánku fd;k tk;A 2- fd blh Ádkj losZ Øekad 187@1 jdck 1-003 gsŒ esa ls 3 ch?kk 13 foLok ij ;kfpdkdrkZ Øekad 2 ds LFkku ij fjLiksMsUV Øekad 2 ds uke LFkkukUrj.k fd;s tkus dk vkns'k Ánku fd;k tk,A 3- fd] mi;qZDr Hkwfe;ksa ds vfrfjDr losZ Øekad 481 jdck 13 foLok Hkwfe ÁR;kFkhZ Øekad 2 ds LoRo LokfeRo ,oa vkf/kiR; dh Hkwfe ij ;kfpdkdrkZ Øekad 2 ds uke dk ukekUrj.k fd;s tkus ckor~ vkns'k Ánku fd;k tk,A 4- fd] rglhynkj] Xokfy;j dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkosa fd jkthukesa ds eqrkfcd vfHkys[k esa fu;r vof/k esa ukekadu vafdr djs ,oa fofËkor iVokjh ds ek/;e ls lhekadu djkosaA 5- fd] tks Hkh U;k;kfpr lgk;rk gks Ánku dh tk,A^^ In view of the aforesaid, both the compromise applications (I.A.1034/14 & I.A.2469/14), are allowed and as per terms and conditions of these compromise applications, this petition is disposed of. In order to avoid future complications between the parties aforesaid both the applications of compromise, in which the terms & conditions of the compromise are mentioned, and it's annexed trace map, are made the part and parcel of this order. While enforcing this order in future if any difficulty comes in the way of the parties, then the terms and conditions along with prayer Clause stated in the subsequent application I.A. No. 2469/14, shall prevail and binding between the parties. While enforcing this order in future if any difficulty comes in the way of the parties, then the terms and conditions along with prayer Clause stated in the subsequent application I.A. No. 2469/14, shall prevail and binding between the parties. At the request of both the counsel on their mutual consent they are permitted to file their respective applications in accordance with the terms of compromise for mutation of the land before the concerning revenue Court within four weeks. And pursuant to it, the concerning revenue Court is directed that on filing such proceedings by the parties, the same be considered and decided on merits in terms of the above mentioned compromise of the parties within three months from the date of filing the same. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in terms of aforesaid both the compromise applications and till this extent the impugned orders of Tribunal, Revenue Courts and Court are modified. There shall be no order as to the costs. Earlier after hearing the matter on merits, the same was reserved for orders on 26.11.2013, but in view of the aforesaid compromise, no order is required in the matter on any other merits. The petitioner, who claimed himself to be a Law student, seems to have personal interest or have now being projected by some interested person to file present Public Interest Litigation seeking setting aside of the order passed in Writ petition No. 1425/2010 and Writ petition No. 1428/2010. Therefore,, this cannot be said to be a genuine Public Interest Litigation. Consequently, petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to be deposited with High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of thirty days, failing which office to take steps.” 3. Now, the review petition has been preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the findings given by the co-ordinate Bench are not according to law. It is further averred that the co-ordinate Bench has over sighted the judgment of this Court dated 23.1.2019 passed in W. P. No.8540/2015 and has wrongly imposed cost of Rs. 20,000/-. In view of aforesaid, the petitioner seeks review of the order. 4. It is further averred that the co-ordinate Bench has over sighted the judgment of this Court dated 23.1.2019 passed in W. P. No.8540/2015 and has wrongly imposed cost of Rs. 20,000/-. In view of aforesaid, the petitioner seeks review of the order. 4. The petitioner has pleaded in his review petition as under:- ^^¼ch½ ;g fd] ekuuh; U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; esa ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk Lo;a dks ykW LVwMsaV Lohdkj djrs gq;s Lo;a dk fgr ,oa fdlh vU; }kjk Ák;ksftr gksdj tufgr ;kfpdk ÁLrqr fd;k tkuk crkdj 20]000 :i, dkLV yxkdj ;kfpdk [kkfjt dj nh fdUrq ekuuh; U;k;ky; us ;kfpdkdrkZ ij mDr vkjksi fdl vk/kkj ij ,oa fdl dkj.k ls mYys[k fd;k x;k gSa mldk dksbZ Áek.k ;k fdlh ds }kjk ,slk dksbZ 'kiFk i= Hkh ÁLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSa D;ksafd jsLiksaMsaVl dks uksfVl Hkh tkjh ugha fd;s x;s ekuuh; U;k;ky; ;kfpdkdrkZ dks viuk i{k j[kus ,oa viuh fof/k lEer ckr rdZ ÁLrqr djus ,oa 'kkldh; vfHkys[kksa dks crk jgk Fkk fdUrq ekuuh; U;k;ky; ;kfpdkdrkZ dks grksRlkfgr ,oa Hk;Hkhr djrs gq;s ckj & ckj dg jgs Fks fd fdruh dkLV yxk ns tcfd ;kfpdkdrkZ dk mn~ns'; flQZ eafnj dh vkSdkQ Hkwfe dks Hkw&efQk;ksa ls cpkus gsrq mDr tufgr ;kfpdk ds ek/;e lsa ,d Á;kl FkkA ¼lh½ ;g fd] ;kfpdkdrkZ Xokfy;j uxj dk ltx ukxfjd] fof/k dk Nk= gksdj 'kklu ds fgrksa ds fy;s ,oa Hkz"Vkpkj ds fo:) la?k"kZjr gSa ÁkFkhZ ds }kjk Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 51&, ¼>½ ds ewy drZO;ksa dk ikyu djrs gq;sa Jhjketkudh efUnj ¼vkSdkQ 'kkldh; Hkwfe½ dh lkoZtfud laifRr dks cpkus gsrq tufgr ;kfpdk ÁLrqr dh Fkh ysfdu ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us Hkkjr ds lafo/kku esa ÁnRr ewy drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus okys ;kfpdkdrkZ ds fo:) gh 20]000 :i, dh dkLV yxkdj Hk;Hkhr dj fn;k tcfd jsLiksaMsaV uEcj 4 yxk;r 10 us fu;ksftr "kM;a= dj eafnj vkSdkQ dh Hkwfe ij viuk ukekarj.k djk fy;k ysfdu ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk mDr HkwekfQ;kvksa dks uksfVl rd tkjh ugha fd;s x,A ¼Mh½ ;g fd] ;kfpdkdrkZ odkyr dsa ÁksQs'ku esa vk jgk gSa vkSj ekuuh; U;k;ky; ,oa U;k; ÁfØ;k esa fo'okl j[krs gq;s ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ls U;k; dh iw.kZ vis{kk j[krk gSa fdUrq ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ftl Ádkj ls ;kfpdkdrkZ dh tufgr ;kfpdk dks [kkfjt dj ,d fofËk Nk= ij 20]000 :i, dh dkLV yxkdj mls grksRlkfgr ,oa Hk;Hkhr dj fn;k fd oks Hkfo"; esa U;k; gsrq dHkh ;kfpdk u yxk;s vkSj 'kkldh; py ,oa vpy lEifRr;ksa dks ywVus okyksa ds gkFk yEcs gSa muls Hk;Hkhr jgsA** 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the review petition and prayed for its dismissal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The Apex Court in Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi & ors. ( AIR 2013 SCW 1316 ) held that the Court has to keep in mind the fact that the scope and ambit of review proceeding is limited under the provisions of review. The order under review is neither irregular nor without jurisdiction and has passed after considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. It is also well settled that review proceedings cannot be converted into appeal. Review jurisdiction can be successfully exercised only when order under review suffers from any error apparent on the face of record. 8. It is also observed by the apex Court that scope of review petition is very limited and submissions made on questions of fact cannot be a ground to review the order. It was further observed that review of an order is permissible only if some mistake or error is apparent on the face of the record, which has to be decided on the facts of each and every case. Further held that an erroneous decision, by itself, does not warrant review of each decision. 9. In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr. (1998) 4 SCC 409 , the Apex Court observed that, the power which is vested in the superior courts should be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights. 10. In Inderchand Jain (dead) through LRs. v. Motilal (dead) through LRs. (2009) 14 SCC 663 , the Apex Court held that in review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. The apex Court further clearly held that an application for review only when the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. 11. Thus, the present review petition has to be decided keeping in mind the aforesaid decision of Hon. Apex Court. 12. “Public Interest Litigation” is known as “Social Interest Litigation”. 11. Thus, the present review petition has to be decided keeping in mind the aforesaid decision of Hon. Apex Court. 12. “Public Interest Litigation” is known as “Social Interest Litigation”. The concept of “Public Interest Litigation” was conceived by Hon. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Socialist Karamchari Sangh (Railway) vs. Union of India ( AIR 1981 SC 298 ), wherein an unregistered association of workers was permitted to institute a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for redressal of their common grievances. In other words, “Public Interest Litigation” may be moved by public spirited citizen to the Court for the public cause by invoking writ jurisdiction of the superior courts. 13. It would not be out of place to mention here that the order under review has been passed in PIL petition. Therefore, we feel necessary to address upon the definition of Public Interest Litigation and its scope. 14. The word “PIL” includes litigation, or legal action, which seeks to advance the cause of public concern. PIL is not defined in any statute. It is the outcome of judicial activism to take cognizance of a cause at the instance of any person even if it does not affect him personally, but affects the public at large. It is the mandate of this legal action that there should be no private interest. At times, even the Court can take cognizance of a matter if it is one of utmost public importance, and appoint a person to handle the case. The condition precedent before filing PIL is thorough research of the matter is required. 15. It is settled law that writs are filed by individuals or institutions for their own benefit and not for public interest, whereas PILs are filed in the interest of public at large. Normally PILs are taken into consideration, if the Judges are convinced of the fact that the subject is of significance and is in the interest of the public, but now-a-days misuse or abuse of PILs is growing up which is a serious concern. Hon'ble the apex Court came down heavily on frivolous public interest litigation petitions for personal or extraneous reasons, and eventually laid down certain guidelines to be followed by Courts in entertaining PILs. The judicial system is already over burdened. Hon'ble the apex Court came down heavily on frivolous public interest litigation petitions for personal or extraneous reasons, and eventually laid down certain guidelines to be followed by Courts in entertaining PILs. The judicial system is already over burdened. The filing of such type of PIL petitions further creates unnecessary strain on the judicial system which causes undue delay in disposal of genuine and bona fide cases. Therefore, while exercising this extra ordinary jurisdiction, which is the outcome of judicial activism, it should be carefully carved out, created and nurtured by the Courts. 16. In R & M Trust v. Kormangla Residents Vigilance Group, (2005) 3 SCC 91 , it is held that “locus in PIL is a very relevant factor and courts must always inquire into the locus of the person filing it. Further they also observed that PIL should be entertained in very rare cases.” 17. Now the PILs have achieved the place of importance in our legal system. In India, the first PIL was filed in the year 1976 - Mumbai Kamgar Sangh v. M/s Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and others, [ 1976 (3) SCC 832 ]. The seed of PIL was sown by Justice Iyer through this landmark judgment. Thereafter, Hon. Justice Bhagwati evolved the concept of PIL and developed it to great extent. 18. In the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (AIR 1962 SC 149), Hon'ble the apex Court defined the term “Public Interest Litigation” in the Indian context. Thereafter, various prisoners of Bihar Jail had filed a petition before the Supreme Court Bench headed by Hon. Justice Bhagwati which was registered as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, ( AIR 1979 SC 1369 ), wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that the prisoners should be given benefits of free legal aid and speedy hearing. 19. On the basis of above, it is clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have as locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for whose personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration the PIL is filed. Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL, brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.” 20. Despite above, writing against the dignity of the High Court reflects improper and highly objectionable. The petitioner has pleaded that the Co-ordinate Bench has imposed cost to cause fear to the petitioner and the Court has not issued notice against the conspirators, ie., respondents No. 4 to 10, and has also pleaded that by imposing cost, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has discouraged the petitioner, hence created fear so as to protect the interest of the persons, who are occupying the movable/immovable property of Government. 21. Such kind of pleading raised by the petitioner in the petition itself shows the malafides and modus operandi of the present petitioner and such contention cannot be accepted, as the present petitioner had wasted the precious time of the Court previously also by filing W.P. No. 20404/2019. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this review petition levelling baseless allegations against the coordinate bench of this Court. Hence, in such circumstances, in order to prevent filing of such frivolous petition by such person having oblique motive, we feel no hesitation to impose exemplary cost in the present case. 22. Consequently, the review petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- including the cost of Rs. 20,000/- imposed by order dated 4.10.2019 passed in W.P. No. 20404/2019, which shall be deposited by the petitioner with High Court Legal Services Committee, within a period of thirty days from the date of this order, failing which office to take steps to list this case as PUD for compliance.