Madhya Pradesh High Court
Salim Qureshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 6 April, 2017
1 WP 6955/15
Salim Qureshi Vs. State of M.P. & others
6/4/17
Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, Govt. Advocate for respondents No.
1,3 and 4/State.
Shri H.D.Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Shri Anmol Khedkar, Advocate for respondents No. 5 to 7.
1. The present PIL raises the following reliefs:-
"I. That, the Respondents No. 1 to 4 may kindly be directed to take action for removing illegal encroachment or illegal alienation over the land of Math Maufi Atiya Sarkar situated at village Girwai District Gwalior vide survey numbers mentioned in para 3.3 of this petition.
II That, it is further kindly be directed that if any land belongs to Maufi Atiya Sarkar is sold illegally then such sale deeds may kindly be declared as null and void.
III That, the respondent No. 5 to 8 may kindly be directed to remove the illegal encroachment over the land of Maufi Atiya Sarkar.
IV Any other direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit may kindly be passed. "
2. The present petition raises the public cause that the land allegedly mentioned in para 3.3 of the petition which actually belongs to the trust registered in the name of Sansthan Shri 1008 Sadguru Mahipati Nath Dholi Bua Maharaj by order of the SDO Lashkar dated 30/4/2014 vide P/16 and managed by Aukaf Department Gwalior is being encroached upon and sold by the respondents No. 5 to 8 (name of respondent No.8 has been deleted) by way of registered deed dated 24/8/16.
3. The petitioner claims to be a public spirited person being journalist and the Chief Editor of weekly newspaper Faiz and so also President of Bhartiya Manav Adhikar Sanrakshan Sangh.
4. On issuance of notice, the State i.e., respondents No. 1,3 and 2 WP 6955/15 Salim Qureshi Vs. State of M.P. & others 4 have filed reply primarily submitting that the land in question is recorded in Bhumiswami Trust as per record for Samvat 1997 in column no. 8 and recorded as private land. The State further submitted that the said Sansthan is a registered Trust and in W.P.No.1264/15 concerning disputed issue regarding said Trust is pending before this court where on 13/3/2015 single bench of this court granted status quo. However, it is clarified by the State that in W.P.No.1264/15 the land involved is not the one in question in the present PIL. Importantly, the State has categorically submitted that the land in question in the PIL does not belong to the Government and is personal land of the Trust. The State has also denied any encroachment over the said land.
5. Short return by respondent No.5 has also been filed primarily objecting to the maintainability of this petition by contending that the petitioner is hand in glove with one Balkrishna Vasudeo to disrepute the said Trust. Respondent No.5 has reiterated the stand of the State that the property in question is a private property, of the Trust, which has been sold by validly executed sale deed to the private respondents, which cannot be made subject matter of this PIL and can be challenged only by way of civil suit.
6. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner disputing the stand taken by the State in the return.
7. From the above analysis of the pleadings recorded and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties, it is clear that a relief is sought by way of the present PIL for removal of the illegal encroachment from the land of the Trust and for declaring the sale-deed executed by the Trust in favour of the private respondents as null and void.
8. As regards the first relief of divesting the Trust of the illegal encroachment, it is evident from the record vide contentions of the 3 WP 6955/15 Salim Qureshi Vs. State of M.P. & others State functionaries that the land does not belong to the government and instead belongs to the Trust. With this kind of stand taken by the State, the issue for removing of encroachment over govt. land gets converted into issue of removal of encroachment from private property which cannot and ought not to be subject matter of the PIL. Petitioner is free to take appropriate recourse available to him in law for the said purpose.
9. So far as other relief of declaring the sale deed executed between the trust and private respondents as null and void is concerned, same further pertains to field of private law and not public law and therefore cannot be raised in PIL.
10. The petitioner appears to have raised personal cause by claiming the same as public cause by way of present PIL, which cannot be permitted.
11. The present PIL therefore in the considered opinion of this court deserves to be and is hereby dismissed with only observation that the petitioner is free to avail appropriate remedy under law.
No cost.
(Sheel Nagu) (S.A.Dharmadhikari)
Judge Judge
6/4/2017 6/4/2017
(Bu)