RAMAN DEV Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed as Public Interest Litigation by Raman Dev petitioner who seeks removal of alleged illegal construction said to be raised by respondent -3 and by taking the possession of the land for some public purpose came to be considered by us on 28.11.2005. On going through the allegations contained in the petition and particulars of petitioner which were lacking, we considered it proper to seek further information from the petitioner and also sought his personal appearance . In detailed order passed by us on 28.11.2005, we noticed the allegations made in the writ petition wherein it was alleged that petitioner himself obtained annexures to the writ petition from the revenue agency whereas the documents annexed to the petition reveal that the documents were obtained by one Raj Kumar S/O Om Parkash . The allegations thus prima facie found to be incorrect . It was further noticed that the land was said to be possessed by some Ganesh Dass who acquired the same by registered sale deed but copy of such deed was not on record. Petitioner had also not disclosed his residential address and other particulars including his status to enable us to find out his credentials and intention in filing this petition. It was under these circumstances, we ordered filing of affidavit giving details and also directed the appearance of petitioner and Raj Kumar who had obtained the certified copies of the annexures to the petition.

(2.) INSTEAD of filing affidavit and making appearance as directed, a motion was laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking time to file affidavit, cause appearance of the petitioner and that of Raj Kumar. This motion was allowed vide order dated 30 -11 -2005.

(3.) TODAY , when the petitioner appeared, we sought certain information from him and accordingly his statement was recorded to find out whether the present petition is intended to raise any real public interest dispute or is intended to be an attempt to gain publicity or is for any other ulterior motive. The statement of petitioner was accordingly recorded in the open court. Petitioner in his statement before us disclosed that he is working in a shop with his father. He is hardly 11th pass and is a visitor to the the temple nearer the house of respondent -3. He has stated that somewhere in the month of March or April, 2005, he visited the temple at 3.00/4.00 PM when he was informed by somebody that a palatial house has been constructed on State land . Name of such person is not known to him. He was also not aware when the house was constructed nor he has any knowledge as to who has constructed the house.