DEVENDRA PRAKASH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, filed as Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the construction put up by respondents Nos. 6 and 7 on Khasra Nos. 398, 400 and other Khasras of Ganesh Nagar Colony, Bhopal (Bawariya Kalan) of the hotel and building are illegal; and to issue direction to the State Authorities to remove the same immediately. The petitioners have also asked for a direction to appoint independent agency out of State of Madhya Pradesh to enquire into the illegal activities resorted to by the respondents with the connivance of the Government officials; and to register offence against the guilty persons. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed not to legalise or regularize the illegal construction put up by the private respondent Nos. 6 and 7. This petition is resisted by the respondents by filing detailed reply affidavits. In the petition although diverse assertions have been made, however, during the arguments broadly three grounds have been urged by the Counsel for the petitioners. The first ground is that the sale-deed executed in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 by the respondent No. 8 was misleading and has resulted in causing loss to public exchequer due to connivance and acts of commission and omission of the Government officials. The second ground is about violation of the conditions imposed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) while permitting diversion of the usage of the land in question from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose, in particular condition Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 9 thereof. It is lastly contended that FIR has been registered on the basis of complaint made by the petitioners as back as on 11-9-2009, which has not been enquired into and no effective steps have been taken for the reasons best known to the Police Authorities.

(2.) During the rejoinder, Counsel for the petitioners made an attempt to argue one more contention to the effect that the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have put up construction on Government/Municipal lands, as can be discerned from the observations found in communication dated 22-7-2002 (Annexure P-26), appended to the rejoinder filed by the petitioners in response to the reply affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the additional reply affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

(3.) The respondents, however, have contested this petition not only on merits, but also by pointing out that the petition filed by these petitioners is motivated petition to espouse personal interest out of vengeance. Inasmuch as, the father of the petitioner No. 1 had filed a suit before the Civil Court asserting easementary rights in the subject land owned and possessed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7, which eventually came to be dismissed as withdrawn on the finding that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest therein. The father of the petitioner No. 1 sought liberty from the Civil Court to resort to the writ petition before this Court but, instead, has put up the petitioner No. 1, his son, to pursue the same cause of action in the name of Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner No. 2 has been made namesake petitioner. The respondents have also placed on record that the petitioners attempted to extract money from respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to the extent of Rs. 10 lacs for withdrawing the present Public Interest Litigation, which fact is recorded in the audio tape recording and placed on record in the form of CD and transcript thereof. The respondents further contended that the petitioners without challenging any of the Statutory Orders have sought vague and wide reliefs in this Public Interest Litigation, which cannot be countenanced. In addition, it is submitted that the petition has been filed almost after two years from the date of commencement of construction activity on the site. In that, the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 after obtaining all statutory compliances and permissions from the concerned authorities commenced construction on the disputed plot sometime in December, 2004, whereas the present petition has been filed in January, 2006, only after the suit filed by the father of the petitioner No. 1 was withdrawn on 21-11-2005. On merits, the respondents have placed reliance on the Statutory Orders passed from time to time by the concerned authorities permitting the said respondents to commence the construction work on the subject plot. We shall make reference to those documents at appropriate places while dealing with the submissions of the petitioners.