Full Judgment
1 W.P.No.9901/2008 Bansroop versus State of M.P & ORS.03.04.2013 Shri Imtiyaz Hussain and Shri B.K.Bais learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anand Nayak learned counsel for respondent no.4.
Shri Rajesh Dubey learned counsel for respondent no.6.
Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy.
Advocate General for the State.
This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner challenging orders dated 1.2.2005, 29.9.1998 and 25.4.2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Sidhi alleging that the respondents have permitted exchange of government land in favour of the private respondents, totally overlooking the fact that the land in question was reserved for public use within the limit of Municipal Corporation Singrouli.
The respondent nos.5 & 6 have filed a reply and raised a preliminary objection regarding suppression of facts by the petitioner.
It is stated that the petitioner had filed another petition which was registered as W.P No.4749/2009 (PIL) in respect of the same issue regarding exchange of land which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 28.10.2009 on the ground that the issue was sought to be raised after a considerable lapse of time.
Copy 2 W.P.No.9901/2008 Bansroop versus State of M.P & ORS.of the order passed by this Court in W.P No.4749/2009 (PIL) has been filed as Annexure R-1 alongwith the return of respondent nos.5 & 6.
It is submitted by the said respondents that the present petition also seeks to challenge the exchange of land that was made on 29.9.1998 and is, therefore, belated.
The respondent nos.5 & 6 have also stated that the petitioner has made a false declaration, in para-10 of the petition, that no suit or proceedings in respect of the same subject matter is pending before any other court as a civil suit in respect of the same issue is pending before the Civil Court.
The respondent nos.5 & 6 have also pointed out that the order passed by the revenue authorities dated 29.9.1998 has subsequently been affirmed and upheld by the appellate authority upto the State Government but the petitioner has not challenged the said orders of the appellate or higher authorities.
The respondent no.4 has also filed a separate return and raised similar objections regarding maintainability of the petition.
The respondent no.4 has filed Annexures R/4-1 to R/4-3 which are the plaint and other documents of Civil Suit No.54-A/06 which is pending before the Second Civil Judge Class- II Baidhan, District Sidhi in which the subject matter 3 W.P.No.9901/2008 Bansroop versus State of M.P & ORS.of dispute is the same land i.e.KhaSr.Nos.656, 709 and 710 situated in village Harrai (Poorva).Tehsil Singrouli .
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner had denied suppression of facts or pendency of any proceedings in respect of the same subject matter, but a perusal of Annexures R-4-1 to R-4-3 clearly indicates that Civil Suit No.54-A/06 in respect of the same land is pending before the Second Civil Judge Class-II Baidhan, District Sidhi and that the suit is yet to be decided by the competent court.
As parallel proceedings cannot be permitted to be taken up in respect of the same issue, we are of the considered opinion that this Public Interest Litigation cannot be entertained, moreso as the petitioner has remedies available to him, against the impugned order, under the provisions of law.
In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.
( S.A.BOBDE ) ( R.S.JHA ) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE mms/-