Petitioner Involved In 29 Criminal Cases, Not A 'Responsible Citizen': Allahabad High Court Dismisses 'Land Grabber's' PIL With 5 Lakh Cost

The Allahabad High Court last week imposed a 5 Lakh cost on a person who had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition noting that the petitioner had 29 criminal cases registered/pending against him and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is a responsible citizen.

Apart from that, the Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Vivek Varma noted that the petitioner had himself encroached upon the land of the Gaon Sabha and due to that, a penalty had been imposed upon him by the Assistant Collector under the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

The case in brief

The petitioner, one Ajay Singh moved a PIL plea before the Court alleging that respondent no. 7, in connivance with revenue officials, had unauthorizedly occupied a large part of the state's and therefore, he sought an immediate action to dispossess 'unauthorized occupant' from the land in question.

The Counsel for respondent no.7, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner is having a criminal history as twenty-nine criminal cases in heinous offences have been registered against him.

It was also submitted that in fact, one Satish Kumar had approached the High Court by way of filing a PIL seeking direction upon the State to conduct a detailed inquiry into the 'illegal and unlawful act' of grabbing government land by the petitioner.

It was also told to the Court that proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner under Section 122-B of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by the Gaon Sabha against the petitioner as he himself is a land grabber.

In this background, it was submitted that the instant petition though styled as a PIL was nothing but an attempt to misguide the Court and it had been filed with an oblique motive

Court's observations 

The Court, at the outset, noted that the process of the Court cannot be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind and further observed that disclosure of credentials and the public purpose sought to be espoused are the essential elements to be stated in initiating proceedings in the public interest.

Regarding the claim of the petitioner, that he is a Social Worker, the Court observed that in order to substantiate the nature of the social work he is doing or seeks to do, he had not disclosed any experience that makes him suitable or perfect for doing the said job and no document in the proof had been furnished.

Therefore, the Court opined that in the absence of any documentary proof to establish his authority or expertise in doing social work, he does not have the requisite credentials to initiate a petition in Public Interest.

In this regard, the Court further opined that for maintaining the PIL, the petitioner in the writ petition, in brief, should state, with proof, that what he has done and what expertise he has on the subject matter of PIL as also that what exercise (sufficient) has been carried out by the petitioner before the administration prior to knocking the door of the Court and that what injury would be caused to the downtrodden of the society or public at large if cause under PIL is not espoused by the Court.

Against this backdrop, the Court said that in the absence of the fact that the petition had been preferred in the interest of justice for a large number of downtrodden persons who are unable to approach the Courts of Law, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain this petition in the public interest that too in a matter which does not involve basic human rights.

Lastly, noting that the petitioner didn't mention the criminal antecedents lodged against the writ petitioner, and rather accepted the fact that twenty-nine criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner, the Court observed thus:

"This itself shows the conduct of the writ petitioner while filing the instant writ petition in the form of Public Interest of Litigation."

Accordingly, the instant petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid/deposited by the petitioner before the Senior Registrar of this Court within three months.

The Senior Registrar of the Court has been asked to transmit the amount to the account of Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh, so that the cost shall be utilized for the welfare of poor children.

Case title - Ajay Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Urban Dept. Lko. & Ors.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order