JUDGMENT : Per: Chowdhary, J. 01. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, as Public Interest Litigation, seeking a writ of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the Order dated 22.06.2024 passed in the file No. 9-JK-060/2022, whereby ‘In-Principle Approval’ with regard to the ‘gair mumkin jhad’ (State land) measuring 05 kanals 05 marlas falling under khasra No. 667 min/599 situated at Maha, Tehsil and District Kathua has been granted allegedly in violation of J&K Big Land Estates Abolition Act, 2007 and Forest Conservation Rules, 2022 and also seeking a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents No. 2 to 4 to constitute an independent committee for conducting an enquiry with regard to the illegal action of the respondents of issuing fard, executing sale deed, changing the nature and attesting Mutation No. 707 of 2024 dated 18.09.2024 of ‘gair mumkin jhad’ land falling in khasra No. 667 min/599 situated at Mehah Patti Tehsil and District Kathua with a purpose to open a commercial petrol pump on a wood waste and further commanding the respondents to restrain the respondent No. 13 and his agents from interfering into the ‘gair mumkin jhad’ falling in khasra No. 667min/599 situated at Mehah Patti Tehsil & District Kathua already escheated to the Government. 02. The petitioner has asserted in his petition, that in village Maha tehsil and district Kathua, there exists a gair mumkin khadd measuring 9 kanal 14 marlas falling under khasra No. 667/559 and along wi th the said gair mumkin khadd, a ‘gair mumkin Jhad’ measuring 12 Kanal 13 Marlas also exists, which is a dense forest area consisting of thousands of trees, vegetation and plantation near khad; that the said ‘gair mumkin jhad’ stands escheated to the State after the coming into force of the J&K Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, Svt. 2007; that despite passing of the said Act, the fard intikhab of the aforesaid ‘gair mumkin jhad’ was issued fraudulently by the revenue agency and land measuring 5 kanals 5 marlas, out of the said ‘gair mumkin jhad’ was purchased by the private respondent No. 13 from Makhan Singh and others and Rakesh Kumar, despite having a ban in the UT of J&K for registration of sale deed with regard to the land in question for opening a petrol pump of Indian Oil Corporation in connivance with the revenue officials, in regard whereof mutation bearing No. 707/2024 dated 18.09.2024 was also attested by the Tehsildar Kathua. 03. It is pleaded in the petition that being aggrieved of the mutation (supra), the petitioner herein filed a Revision Petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, which was transferred by the respondent No. 3 to Additional Commissioner vested with the powers of Additional Commissioner, who did not take any action initially and kept the matter pending without assigning any reasons; that being aggrieved of the inaction on the part of the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, the petitioner filed a writ petition-WP(C) No. 3061/2024 for preserving the ‘gair mumkin jhad’ in public interest, which was allowed to be withdrawn with a liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 22.06.2024, whereby ‘In principle Approval’ was granted in favour of the private respondent; that whole exercise of getting the ‘In principle Approval’ and ‘final approval’ from the Ministry for opening a petrol pump has been conducted without disclosing the fact that the ‘gair mumkin jhad’ land stands already escheated to the State. 04. It is further pleaded in the petition that the petitioner has filed the present Public Interest Litigation against the inaction of the respondents of converting ‘gair mumkin jhad’ (State land) into a commercial petrol pump in violation of the J&K Big Landed Estate Abolition Act, Svt. 2007 and has also challenged the ‘In-Principle Approval’granted vide order dated 22.06.2024 issued by the Regional Officer Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, in favour of the respondent No. 13 in violation of the principles of Forest Conservation Rules 2022. 05. 2007 and has also challenged the ‘In-Principle Approval’granted vide order dated 22.06.2024 issued by the Regional Officer Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, in favour of the respondent No. 13 in violation of the principles of Forest Conservation Rules 2022. 05. Pursuant to the notice, the respondent No. 13 has filed the objections, stating therein that ‘In Principal approval’ has been validly granted by the Central Government by exercising its powers under section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; that any person aggrieved by an order of decision made by any authority under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 may prefer an appeal to the National Green Tribunal (NGT) within thirty days from such order or decision; that the petitioner instead of availing alternate efficacious remedy of filing an appeal to the NGT, has straightway come to this Court invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as such, the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable because of the remedy available with him, inasmuch as, several High Courts across the country have passed orders refusing to exercise their extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the alternate efficacious remedy available before the National Green Tribunal; that the petitioner has not come to this High Court with clean hands and has concealed material facts in the present PIL, which have been brought forth by the answering respondent No. 13 hereinabove and besides, there is already multiplicity of litigation before the revenue and civil courts in respect of the lis forming the subject-matter of the present PIL petition. 06. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 07. It is needless to emphasize that the requirement of locus standi of a party to litigation is mandatory because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation, whether in private or public action, in relation to any specific remedy sought for, has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold. 08. The Apex Court in S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India reported as 1981 Supp. SCC 87 laying a note of caution held that we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. Union of India reported as 1981 Supp. SCC 87 laying a note of caution held that we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective. The Apex Court again in a case of State of H.P Vs. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Shimla & Ors reported as 1985(3) SCC 169 has held that Public Interest Litigation is a weapon, which has to be used with great care and circumspection. 09. It is an admitted fact that the land measuring 5 kanals 5 marlas, which is subject matter of this petition, has been mutated by the jurisdictional Tehsildar and Revision titled “Raj Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Kathua & Ors” against that mutation has been pending with the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu wherein the private respondent No. 13, namely, Chetan Mahajan @ Chetan Gupta has also been arrayed as party. It is a matter to be decided by the revenue authorities regarding as to under what circumstances the land in question, which the petitioner claims to be ‘gair mumkin Jhad’, has been mutated in the name of a private person based on some sale deed. 10. Besides, the matter regarding the subject matter of this writ petition being an issue before the revenue authorities, admittedly, regarding the same property, a civil suit for declaration has also been filed by Mayank Mahajan and Vikram Sharma against Dushyant Kumar Ubbot, respondent No. 12 herein and Chetan Mahajan @ Chetan Gupta, respondent No. 13 herein, which is subjudice before the court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division (CJM), Kathua. The subject matter of this petition being the subject matter of the Revision before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu and the pendency of a civil suit regarding the same subject matter before the civil court, in our considered opinion, can be an impediment in filing this Public Interest Litigation as the parties before the revenue forum and the civil court shall have the opportunity of determination of the rights with regard to the subject matter of this petition. 11. 11. For the foregoing reasons and the observations made hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that no further proceedings are required to be taken in this petition, which has been styled as Public Interest Litigation by the petitioner, in view of the available remedies before the fora stated hereinabove, as already availed. 12. The petition is accordingly dismissed along with connected application(s), if any. There shall be no order as to costs.