V.M. Kande, J.

1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the sanction of plan granted by the respondents 1 to 5 to respondent No. 6 for construction of a commercial complex (four storeyed) i.e. basement, ground plus four floors on Plot No. 1, Sheet No. 56(B), Kamal Colony, Morshi road, Amravati. The petitioners also challenge the grant of building permit and commencement certificate issued by respondent No. 1 for the construction of the said commercial complex to respondent No. 6.

2. The petitioners who are having their buildings on the adjoining plot, have filed this petition, on the apprehension that the proposed construction of commercial complex carried out by respondent No. 6, will prove to be a serious annoyance to health and comfort of the inhabitants of neighbourhood including the petitioners. The petition is, therefore, filed as a public interest litigation. The other grievance of the petitioners, is that though the development plan sanctioned by the State Government was for the City of Amravati which clearly shows that the alleged plot in the lay out has been reserved for residential purposes, the sanction which is granted by the respondents 1 to 5 to respondent No. 6, is for the development of huge four storeyed commercial complex. The petitioners are challenging the said plan which was sanctioned on 12-4-2001 by the respondent No. 1-Corporation.

3. In this petition, the petitioners are seeking following prayers;

i) by a writ of mandamus, order or direction quash and set aside the sanction for construction granted to the respondent No. 6 by respondents No. 1 to 4 as per the plan at Annexure C to the petition and also further quash and set aside the Building Permit and Commencement Certificate granted to respondent No. 6 by respondent No. 1 Municipal Corporation;

ii) restrain permanently the respondents No. 1 to 5 from permitting or carrying out the construction of commercial complex in the open spaces of 25,000 sq. ft., which is shown in the Development Plan at Annexure-E as earmarked for residential purpose by Letters A, B, C, D and A;

iii) during the pendency of the instant writ petition, stay further construction which is being carried out by respondent No. 6 pursuant to sanction for development/construction granted by respondent No. 1 Corporation as shown in the Map at Annexure C to the petition on the land in question;

iv) grant such other relief, pass such other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and

v) saddle the costs of this petition upon the respondents.

4. The petitioners have filed this petition on 13-6-2001 and on9-7-2001 this Court had issued notice to the respondents. After the notices were served, the respondent No. 6 filed a detailed affidavit opposing interim relief and admission of the petition and also controverted the averments made by the petitioners by stating that the facts mentioned in the petition were incorrectly stated and that the petitioners had suppressed material facts from this Court. After the said reply was filed by respondent No. 6, the petitioners made an application for amendment of the petition. In the said amendment application, the petitioners have stated as follows:

'Certain facts are brought out in the reply filed by the respondents, which has necessitated the filing of the instant application for amendment of the petition.'

The petitioners in the said amendment application virtually asked for amendment of the number of paragraphs and it appears that since the main writ petition was not yet admitted, the said application for amendment was allowed.

5. This petition, though of the year 2001, was given utmost precedence as it was allegedly filed in public interest and, therefore, this petition is taken for deciding it finally at the admission stage. Hence, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties.

6. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petition, are as follows:The dispute, in the instant writ petition, relates to the construction of the four storeyed commercial complex by respondent No. 6, over the land out of Plot No. 1, Sheet No. 56 D, Mofussil Plot, Kamal Colony, Amravati. The entire Plot No. 1 having total area 2,31,386 sq. ft. was initially purchased by one Smt. Gawarjabai Sikchi by the sale deed dated 22nd August, 1940. Immediately thereafter she prepared a layout of the said plot in the name of Kamal Colony and got it sanctioned from the Municipality of Amravati Town in the year 1940-41. It is contended by the petitioners that in the said lay-out 25,000 sq. ft. of the land i.e. more than 10% of the total land was kept open for recreational purpose and children park etc. and most of this land is still open to sky even after the period of 60 years. It is further contended by the petitioners that the petitioners No. 2 Sou. Prabhavati Atal is the owner of 1600 sq. ft. of land out of Plot No. 14 in the said layout. The petitioner No. 1 is the husband of petitioner No. 2 and is holding leasehold rights in respect of the land owned by the petitioner No. 2 and he had constructed, on the said land, 2 storeyed building some time in the year 1974. The petitioner No. 1 having his office on the ground flour and the entire ground floor being used for commercial purposes whereas the first and second floors are used for residential purpose. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said area being residential area, respondents 1 to 5 could not have sanctioned the plan for the commercial complex. It is contended that it was open for respondent No. 6 to have commercial premises on the ground floor and remaining floors could have been used for residential purpose as was done by the petitioner. However, allowing the respondent No. 6 to used the entire building for the commercial purpose, was illegal and contrary to the Development Rules. It is contended by the petitioners that the building of the petitioner is abutting Morshi Road on National Highway No. 6 and it has frontage of the National Highway whereas on the back side of the building there is a service lane of the layout and drainage and next to service lane there are some old godowns.

7. According to the petitioners, the Development Plan of City of Amravati was prepared by respondents 1 to 4 and it was sanctioned by the State Government in the year 1993 and it is still in force and the said plot where the disputed structure is being constructed is reserved for residential purposes. It is submitted that though there are some small portions in the plan earmarked for commercial purpose and have been occupied by the construction of Panchsheel and Priya Talkies but the same were constructed in the year 1961 and 1945 respectively.

8. It is submitted by the petitioners that they learnt that the respondent No. 6, had got disputed plan sanctioned on 12-4-2001 from the respondent No. 1 Corporation. The petitioner No. 1 and 3 others had issued a legal notice dated 19-5-2001 and the said notice was served to the Counsel and the various illegalities committed in sanctioning the plan, granting building permit and commencement certificate to respondent No. 6, were brought to the notice of the respondents including the respondent No. 5 Collector. It is contended that in spite of the said notice, the respondent No. 6 had started taking steps for construction of the said commercial complex and that since the proposed construction would prove to be a serious annoyance to the health and comfort of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood including the petitioners and hence they have filed this petition.

9. This petition was taken up for final hearing at the admission stage on 31-1-2002. After the matter was heard for some time we felt that it was necessary to have a clear picture of the facts and hence we had directed the Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Amravati to inspect the site and to report to this Court within 10 days stating the stage in which the entire construction activities are as of today. We had further directed him to take photographs. Accordingly, the Executive Engineer had taken inspection of the disputed site, had, produced photographs and had submitted detailed report. From the report as well from the photographs, it is clear that more than 75% of the construction work is already completed. It is an admitted position that no stay was granted to the construction activity by this Court earlier.

10. The respondent No. 6 has filed detailed affidavit and has controverted the allegations made by the petitioners. Respondent No. 6 has filed in affidavit in which he has challenged the correctness of the factual averments made by the petitioner. He has challenged the facts pertaining to the plot on which the construction is being carried out as also the area and the maps which are annexed to the petition. It is specifically averred in various paragraphs that the petitioners had not verified the facts from the record of the authorities and, therefore, had made factually incorrect statement. The respondents also questioned the locus of the petitioners in challenging the grant of building permit and commencement certificate. The respondent No. 6 also submitted that the various averments in respect of the sale-deed made by the petitioner, were incorrect and submitted that land in question had been purchased by the answering respondent vide registered Sale-deeds of different dates in respect of the different portions of the Nazul Plot No. 1/1. He had given details of the land purchased by him by executing different sale-deeds on different dates. The respondent No. 6 further submitted that the petitioners had made factually incorrect statement and had annexed nonexistent map which was purported to be a map of sanctioned layout of Kamal Colony. He submitted that the map which is annexed as Annexure A, did not bear any signature of any of the officers nor there was anything to show that the said map was sanctioned layout as alleged by the petitioners. The respondent submitted that, in fact, at no point of time any layout was sanctioned by the then Municipality in the year 1940-41 and submitted the property card, measurement sheet etc. in respect of the land in question, showed that the entire plot was one piece of land and that it had not been sub-divided in any manner much less the manner which has been shown in the map Annexure A and, therefore, it is submitted that the submission of the petitioners that the land in question was divided in small plots, was absolutely false. It was also mentioned that there was never any open space for Children Park and Recreational Activities as shown in the Map Annexure at Annexure A. It was further submitted that the said land was being used for commercial purpose for more than 50 years and on the said land there were godowns, transport offices, garages and oil mills for more than half century. Similarly, there were two theatres viz. Alankar and Panchsheel which were being run for the last 40 to 50 years. Respondent No. 6 further submitted that, in fact, the area shown in the Map at Annexure A for Children Park had already been used for the commercial purposes by erecting a commercial complex after 1993. The respondent further submitted that the petitioners had not placed on record any documents duly authenticated by the respective authorities to show that there was a sanctioned layout as alleged by them. The respondent also questioned the correctness of the various legal submissions which are made by the petitioners.

11. The respondents 1 to 4 also filed their reply in which they have also stated that the facts alleged by the petitioners are not correct. It is further submitted by respondents 2, 3 and 4 that the building permission granted for the said commercial complex by the Planning Authority was legal and in conformity of the proposal of the Development Plan and Zoning Regulations specified in the Building bye-laws. Regarding the contention of the petitioners that in the said layout plan about 25000 sq. ft. of land i.e. more than 10& of the total land was kept open for recreational space, children part etc. it is submitted that in the absence of any copy of sanctioned layout, it was difficult to locate 10% of common recreational open space. It was further stated in the said affidavit that sufficient space was kept on all sides of the proposed building as per the bye-laws and, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. It was further stated that the said plot was continuously used for commercial purpose even prior to the commencement of the sanctioned development plan.

12. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and respondents. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has raised a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that it has raised several disputed questions of fact and, therefore, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable. It was submitted by Shri Gavai, learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 that there was a dispute regarding the basic facts, as also various maps which were annexed by the petitioners and, therefore, it was not possible to go into the said issue under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in D.L.F. Housing Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Municipal Corporation and others, : AIR1976SC386 , wherein the Apex Court has held that in a case, where the basic facts are disputed and complicated questions of law and fact depending on evidence are involved, the writ Court is not the proper forum for seeking relief and the right course for the High Court in proceedings under Article 226 is to dismiss the petition on this preliminary ground without entering upon merits of the case and that in the absence of firm and adequate factual foundation, it is hazardous to embark upon a determination of the points involved. The Apex Court in the said case, in para 18, has observed thus :

'In our opinion, in a case where the basic facts are disputed, and complicated questions of law and fact depending on evidence are involved the writ Court is not the proper forum for seeking relief. The right course of the High Court to follow as to dismiss the writ petition on this preliminary ground, without entering upon the merits of the case. In the absence of firm and adequate factual foundation, it was hazardous to embark upon a determination of the points involved. On this short ground while setting aside the findings of the High Court, we would dismiss both the writ petition and the appeal with costs. The appellants may if so advised seek their remedy by a regular suit.'

13. In our view, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case cited supra, is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Further, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6 had submitted that the petitioners have filed this petition mala fidely. He submitted that four persons including the petitioner No. 1 had issued a legal notice to the authorities, the copy of which is annexed to the present petition at Annexure D. However, one out of four persons has filed the present petition whereas remaining two viz. Shri Shrivallabh Dongardas Sikchi and Sau. Pushpa Ganeshdas Boob, have filed a Civil Suit against the respondents and authorities praying for declaration and mandatory injunction. The prayers in the said suit are as under;

'(i) declare that the building permit and commencement certificate issued by the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to the defendant No. 1 vide Order No. 58 dated 12-4-2001 is illegal and violative of the prescriptive rights of light, breeze and air acquired by the plaintiffs.

(ii) pass a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction thereby restraining the defendant No. 1 from proceeding with and completing the construction of the proposed complex on Nazul Plot No. 1/1, Sheet No. 56-D of Amravati;

(iii) issue an order of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendants to dismantle and demolish the construction, if any, made upon the said Nazul Plot No. 1/1, Sheet No. 56-D of Amravati in pursuance of the building permit and commencement certificatedated 12-4-2001.

(iv) grant any other relief to the plaintiffs as may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case,

(v) saddle the cost of the suit upon the defendants, jointly and severally.'

It was submitted that the suit had been registered as a Regular Civil Suit No. 247/01 and was pending on the file of the 9th Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Amravati. It is submitted that the petitioners were, thus, indulging in filing various suits and the petition at one and the same time. It was submitted that this was a deliberate attempt made by the petitioners which was actuated by ulterior motive which is evident from the fact that though one notice was issued by four persons, two persons opted to file a suit for the same reliefs whereas the present petitioner has filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

14. We have, however, though preliminary issue was raised by the respondents, heard Shri K.H. Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners at length. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in a case where the plans, which are sanctioned by the sanctioning authorities, are contrary to the development plan then such plan and any structure constructed on the basis of said illegally sanctioned plan, was liable to be demolished. He invited our attention to the various Rules, Notifications and bye-laws, more particularly Appendix M pertaining to the land used, classifications and user permit in residential zone. On the basis of the said Rules, he submitted that at the highest what was permitted was the building where there was a commercial uses on the ground floor and the remaining building was used for residential purpose as was done by the petitioners. However, the said Rules, no where envisaged that the entire plot having a commercial complex could be permitted. It was, therefore, submitted that the said plans were illegal and contrary to the said Appendix M. The learned Counsel also took us to the various maps and alleged sanctioned plans and submitted that from the said plans it was clear that the entire area was the residential area and, therefore, such a rampant commercial user with impunity violates the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act and the Development Rules. He relied on various judgments of the Apex Court wherein the Apex Court has held that the High Court could exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and even direct the demolition of the structure which was constructed illegally. Shri Deshpande, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. Ramadas Shenoy v. The Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi and others, reported in : [1975]1SCR680 wherein the Apex Court held that an illegal construction of a cinema building materially affects the right to or enjoyment of the property by persons residing in the residential area and that the municipal authorities owe a duty and obligation under the statute to see that the residential area is not spoilt by unauthorized construction. The Apex Court has observed as follows :

'The High Court was not correct in holding that though the impeached resolution sanctioning plan for conversion of building into a cinema was in violation of the Town Planning Scheme yet it could not be disturbed because the third respondent is likely to have spent money. An excess of statutory power cannot be validated by acquiescence in or by the operation of an estoppel. The Court declines to interfere for the assistance of persons who seek its aid to relieve them against express statutory provision. Lord Selborne in Maddison v. Alderson, 1883(8) App. Cas 467 said that courts of equity would not permit the statute to be made an instrument of fraud. The impeached resolution of the municipality has no legal foundation. The High Court was wrong in not quashing the resolution on the surmise that money might have been spent. Illegality is incurable.'

In our view, the judgment of the Apex Court would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, firstly because the dispute pertains to the sanctioned lay out plans as and the exact area pertaining to the open space as also the area which is reserved for recreation and children park. In the case cited supra initially the licence was granted for the construction of Kalyan-cum-lecture Hall and that the two conditions for the license granted by the Municipal Council, were that the building to be put up was to be a Kalyan Mantap and that the construction was subject to the provisions of Madras Public Health Act, 1939. The respondents, in contravention of the said conditions in the licence, had permitted the respondents to construct a cinema theatre which was contrary to Madras Public Health Act, 1939, and also the condition of license. Thus, there was no disputed question of facts in the said matter which was decided by the Apex Court and, therefore, the ratio of the judgment can not be made applicable to the facts of this case. At this stage, Shri Deshpande, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied upon the case of Dadar Avanit Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others, reported in : [1996]2SCR353 . He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pratibha Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in : [1991]2SCR745a . In the said case, there was a gross violation of floor space index and the Housing Society had constructed six additional stories over and above sanctioned Floor Space Index and unauthorized construction was made in a posh and important locality of the city of Bombay. The Apex Court observed that the violation of Floor Space Index was more than 24,000 sq. ft. and that such unlawful construction was made by the Housing Society in clear and flagrant violation and disregard of F.S.I. and, therefore, had passed an order for demolition of eight floors. In our view, the facts of the present case are entirely different and the ratio of the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, respondent No. 6 had submitted his plans and the said plans have been sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Corporation has filed an affidavit in which it has stated that the sanction has been granted in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. In our view, therefore, the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Shri Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sindhu Education Society v. Municipal Corporation of City of Ulhasnagar and others, reported in : AIR2001Bom145 . In the said case also the structure which was erected was admittedly illegal and even during the pendency of the petition, the construction of the building continued illegally by flouting the orders of the High Court. Under those circumstances, the High Court had directed to take disciplinary action against the responsible officers and had further directed removal of illegal construction. The ratio of the said case is not applicable to the facts of the present case where it is yet to be ascertained whether sanction which was granted by the Municipal Corporation to the plans submitted by respondent No. 6, is contrary to the development plans. Only after the finding is given on the said issue, the said appropriate directions can be given. As of today, the plans submitted by the respondent No. 6 are duly sanctioned by the Corporation and an affidavit has also been filed to that effect which prima facie appears to be correct. Therefore, in our view, the said judgment is not applicable to this case.

15. Shri Gavai, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 and Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6, also relied upon several judgments of the Apex Court and of this Court wherein it has been held that in the disputed question of facts, this Court should not interfere by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

16. Shri Gavai, learned Government Pleader further invited our attention to the various Rules and on merit has also tried to satisfy us that the plans which are sanctioned, are in accordance with the Rules and the Bye-laws and that the sanction which is granted by the Corporation is not contrary to the development plan. He pointed out various Rules which clearly show that even in respect of the residential area, it was permitted to have office complex and godowns and cinema theatres. He further submitted that large portion of the said plot were used for commercial purpose for more than 50 years and no objections had been taken by any of the residents. He further submitted that there was a distance of almost 24 ft. between the building of the petitioner and the proposed building and as such the complaint regarding the violation of easementary rights and obstruction of air and light was incorrect.

17. However, we do not propose to go into the merits of the case in view of the various diverse disputed facts which are raised in this petition. In our view, since there are disputed and mixed question of facts and law, involved in the present petition, the same is not maintainable and we do not propose to exercise our jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in this case. It is also an admitted position that the petitioners appeared to have made an attempt of forum hunting. That on 19-5-2001 a legal notice was sent by four persons to the respondents. Two persons who had sent the said legal notice, had filed the civil suit in the Civil Court in which identical prayers have been made, as are made in the present writ petition. One person out of the four persons who sent the notice, has filed this writ petition asking for identical prayers. The present writ petition appears to have been filed after the Civil Court had declined to grant injunction restraining the present respondent No. 6 for carrying on the construction activity. The petitioner has, therefore, not come to this Court with clean hands and on that ground also we do not propose to exercise extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

18. In view of this, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable since there are disputed questions of facts and mixed questions of facts and law involved in the present case.

19. The petitioners have ostensibly filed this petition in public interest and, therefore, the said writ petition was heard expeditiously and was given top priority. However, impression which was created in our mind after going to the petition, annexures thereto, reply filed by the respondents and after having heard them extensively is that the petitioners appear to be busy bodies and are merely trying to be an obstacle in the construction of the building which is being constructed pursuant to the sanctioned building plan. In this context, we would like to point out that the Apex Court in the case of Sachidanand Pandey and another v. The State of W.B. and others, reported in : [1987]2SCR223 , has observed thus;

'Today, public spirited litigants rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name. They must inspire confidence in courts and among the public. They must be above suspicion. Public interest litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to think that it poses a threat to courts and public alike. Such cases are now filed without any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitions. If courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of public interest litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and the courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions. This does not mean that traditional litigation should stay out. They have to be tackled by other effective methods like decentralising the judicial system and entrusting majority of traditional litigation to village courts and Lok Adalats without the usual populist stance and by a complete restructuring of the procedural law which is the villain in delaying disposal of cases.'

'It is only when courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action or when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially the Supreme Court should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the under-dog and the neglected. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants.'

It will not be out of place to also note the observations of the Delhi High Court made by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pasayat, C.J. (as he then was of the Delhi High Court) in the case of Delhi Municipal Workers Union v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, : AIR2001Delhi68 , which are as under:

'Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be 'publicity interest litigation'. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and it cannot be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for persona gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness of nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (1) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (2) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievousness petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. Thus, Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public spirited holymen. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty envasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessity for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good.'

We, therefore, scrupulously follow the law laid down by the Delhi High Court in the aforesaid case as also the law laid down by our High Court in the case of Sadanand S. Varde and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in : [2001]247ITR609(Bom) by the Division Bench of this Court headed by Hon'ble Shri Justice B.N. Shrikrushna (Now the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court) and do not propose to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

20. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioners raise several disputed questions of fact and mixed questions of fact and law and that the petitioners have alternate remedy of filing a civil suit.

In our view, the petitioners have taken valued time of the Court unnecessarily at a point of time when arrears pending before this Court are stupendous and on the ripes. We find no public interest involved in the petition. We, therefore, direct that the petitioners to pay cost of Rs. 1000/- each within the period of four weeks which may be recovered as land revenue.