Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Digambar Jain Atishay Kshetra ... vs Study Circle Society on 7 November, 2017
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
W.P. No.15316 of 2016
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
Writ Petition No. 15316 of 2016
Shri Digamber Jain, Atishay Kshetra
Kundalpur Public Trust, Kundalpur, M.P. .....Petitioner.
Versus
Study Circle Society & others .....Respondents.
==================================================
Coram:
DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Hemant Gupta, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
==================================================
Shri Ranjeet Kumar, Senior Advocate with Shri Hemant
Shrivastava and Shri Anurag Gohil, Advocates for the petitioner.
Shri Ishan Soni, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri R.K. Sanghi, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
Shri J.K. Jain, Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent
No.3.
Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Addl.A.G., for the respondents/State.
Shri K.N. Pethia, Advocate for the respondent No.8.
==================================================
ORDER
{Jabalpur dt. 7/11/2017} Per: Hemant Gupta, Chief Justice:
The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 27.5.2016, passed by the National Green Tribunal, Central Zonal Bench, Bhopal ( for short "the Tribunal") whereby, on an application filed by the intervenor, the present respondent No.2, an order was passed to maintain status-quo with regard to the land in question and the District Collector and W.P. No.15316 of 2016 2 the Divisional Forest Official of Damoh District was directed to ensure that no trees are allowed to be cut and no construction contrary to the provision of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is allowed to be carried out. The order read as under :
"M.A. No.594/2016 has been filed for urgent hearing. Copy of the M.A. has been given to the Learned Counsel for the Project Proponent.
M.A. No.569/2016 has been filed for interim directions. It is alleged that Khasra Nos.410, 411, 413, 415, 7414, 418, 421, 423, 440, 443, 444, 445, 446, 560, 561, 562, 563, 565, 568 etc. are of Village Kundalur and are part of the forest land measuring 22.87 acres of land of forest block Patera of Forest Division, Damoh. It is alleged further that some construction activity is proposed to be carried out and work allegedly also is about to start. It is submitted that the tree standing in the aforesaid forest land are to be cut and illegal construction on forest land contrary to the provision of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 are to be carried out. We direct that the status-quo with regard to the land shall be maintained, the District Collector and the Divisional Forest Official of Damoh District shall ensure that no trees are allowed to be cut and no construction contrary to the provision of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is allowed to be carried out.
In view of the above, both these M.As. No.594/2016 & 569/2016 accordingly stand disposed of.
Let the matter be listed on the date already fixed i.e. on 22nd July, 2016."
2- The case has a chequered history. Initially the Archaeological Survey of India invoked the jurisdiction of this Court bearing W.P. No.1220/2006 (Archaeological Survey of India vs. State of M.P. and others) relying upon the notification dated 16.7.1913 u/s 3(1) of the Ancient Monuments W.P. No.15316 of 2016 3 Preservation Act, 1904 and the notification dated 30.11.1914 affirming notification dated 16.7.1913. The Archaeological Survey of India sought quashing of the order dated 5.4.1999 whereby a decision has been taken to hand over 158.65 acres of land in village Kundalpur; 34.35 acres of land in village Fatehpur and 6.54 acres of land in village Tirgarh to the present petitioner. The challenge in the writ petition was that in view of the said notifications, no construction or mining activity can take place additionally in view of the notification dated 16.6.1992 issued under Rule 32 of the Ancient Monuments Archaeological Sites & Remains Rules, 1959, around 'Bade Baba Temple' same being protected forest. The petitioner sought immediate action against the present petitioner for cutting down the trees from the site in question. Mohd. Azam filed writ petition - W.P. No.4159/2006 in public interest to the same effect. A contention was raised that the construction is being raised on the protected forest which is not legally permissible. It was also argued that initially land admeasuring 221.87 acres of land was proposed to be notified under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 but ultimately notification was published on 4.3.1974 under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act only for land measuring 63.25 acres and that land measuring 158.62 acres was not declared as protected forest. In fact 158.62 acres of land which was not declared as protected was situated in village Kundalpur, but, also the land measuring 34.35 acres situated in village Fatehpur and 6.45 acres situated in village Tirgarh were also excluded from being protected forest vide communication dated 5.4.1999, subject matter of challenge in the said writ petition. W.P. No.15316 of 2016 4 Respondent No.2 herein filed an intervention application - I.A. No.1743/2006 on 6.3.2006. Both the writ petitions were dismissed on 17.09.2012, wherein it has been held as under :
"18. Now we may deal with the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the construction of the temple is being raised on the land which has been notified as reserved forest. In this connection, learned senior counsel has invited the attention of this Court to letter dated 30-1-2012 sent by the Additional Chief Conservator of Forest to the Superintendent of the Archaeological Department. From perusal of the aforesaid letter, it is apparent that initially, land admeasuring 221.87 acres was proposed to be notified under section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as reserved forest. Ultimately, by notification dated 4-3-1974 issued under section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, only 63.25 acres of land was notified as reserved forest. The remaining land i.e. 158.62 acres of land was not declared as reserved forest. Therefore, the contention that the construction is being made on the reserved forest land cannot be accepted."
xx xx xx
21. We have already held that the monument in question namely the idol of 'Bade Baba' is governed by the provisions of 1964 Act, Section 19 of the Act provides that no person including the owner or occupier of the State Protected Area shall construct any building within the State Protected Area or carry out any mining or quarrying, excavating, blasting or any other operations of the like nature in such area or utilize such area or any part thereof in any other manner without permission of the State Government, therefore, in our considered opinion, the respondent-Trust cannot be permitted to proceed with the construction without obtaining the permission of the State Government. The contention made by learned counsel for the petitioners that even if the respondent-Trust makes an application for permission to raise construction, the same cannot be granted as it can only be permitted to preserve and conserve the W.P. No.15316 of 2016 5 monument in question, cannot be accepted as the original temple is not in existence. Now, the idol of 'Bade Baba' which is an ancient monument alone survives and, therefore, the same is required to be protected and preserved. However, the construction work cannot be done without obtaining permission from the State Government. We, therefore, direct that in case the respondent-Trust submits an application for grant of permission to raise construction of the temple to preserve and protect the idol in question namely 'Bade Baba', the State Government shall consider the application in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of submission of such an application. We have fixed the time limit for deciding the application which may be submitted by the Trust as it is necessary to protect and preserve the idol of 'Bade Baba' from the vagaries of nature. In case the State Government refused to grant permission to raise the construction of the temple, the respondent-Trust shall restore the construction to its position which existed on the date of passing of the interim order dated 20-5-2006 by this Court."
3- The Chief Commissioner, Central Provinces has issued a notification u/s 3(1) on 16.7.1913 of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 in respect of Kundalpur to be protected ancient monument. Subsequently, vide notification dated 20.11.1914, the Chief Commissioner affirmed the notification dated 16.7.2013. Thereafter on 2.5.1967, a notification was issued intending to declare the land situated in many villages as protected forest. However, the 39017.87 acres of land in different villages was notified to be protected forest vide notification dated 4.3.1974 published in the official Gazette on 31.5.1974 including 63.25 acres of land in village Kundalpur, 201.90 acres of land in village Fatehpur and 424.53 acres of W.P. No.15316 of 2016 6 land in village Tirgarh. But vide order dated 5.4.1999 the land measuring 158.62 acres in village Kundalpur was left in favour of Jain Trust for tree plantation and pilgrimage. Similarly vide aforesaid order, 34.35 acres of land in village Fatehpur and 6.45 acres of land in village Tirgarh were left in favour of Jain Trust for tree plantation and pilgrimage. (Notifications dated 26.7.1913, 28.11.1914 and notification dated 4.3.1974 published on 31.3.1974 are on record of W.P. No.1220/2006 decided on 17.9.2012 in a writ petition filed by Archaeological Survey of India). 4- In Writ Petition No.1220/2006 (Archaeological Survey of India vs. State of M.P. and others) decided on 17.9.2012, the challenge was also to the letter dated 5.4.1999 permitting the present petitioner to use land for the purpose of pilgrimage and tree plantation. The said communication was not interfered with.
5- Against the order passed by this Court, two appeals were filed in the Supreme Court by the writ petitioners. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals vide Judgment reported as (2014) 12 SCC 34 [Archaeological Survey of India vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others]. The respondent No.2 herein was represented by Mr. Ajay Choudhary, Advocate. The argument raised by Mr. Choudhary is recorded in para 28 of the W.P. No.15316 of 2016 7 judgment, which read as under :
"28. Mr.Ajay Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the other appeal has filed a written submission. On a perusal thereof, one finds that it is almost on the same lines as the submission of the learned ASG, already taken note of. Mr. Choudhary has also appeared on behalf of the intervener viz. Jain Sanskrati Raksha Manch and filed a written submissions on identical lines. Additionally, however, the intervener has sought to trace out the history of Kundalpur and the Jain Temple structures which were erected sometime between the 6th-7th century AD. It is sought to be emphasised that temple of Bade Baba being an ancient is not governed an ancient temple. These temples were maintained by Jain community and as such it is a public trust. Therefore, Respondents 9 to 11 cannot claim ownership of the temple and at the most they may be considered to be the trustees of the temple with no title to the trust properties which vest in them only for the purpose of administration and management. It is further argued that preservation and protection of ancient monuments is the forte of ASI; no law permits demolition of a temple; the temple of Bade Baba is a protected temple and a monument of national importance and therefore is governed by the 1958 Act over which ASI will have the exclusive jurisdiction.."
After considering the arguments, the Court returned the following finding:
"52. The aforesaid discussion persuades us to accept the conclusion arrived at by the High Court accepting the legal position as enunciated by the High Court i.e. qua these temples it is the 1964 Act passed by the State Legislature that would be applicable and the monuments are not covered by the 1958 Act. Once we arrive at this conclusion on law point, the argument of the learned ASG that since the temples are of national importance, they should be treated as deemed covered by the 1958 Act, cannot be countenanced. After all, the State Act, W.P. No.15316 of 2016 8 namely, the 1964 Act has received the assent of the President of India. It can co-exist with the Central Act, namely, the 1958 Act and there is no repugnancy between the two. Accepting the argument of the learned ASG would amount to rendering the provisions of the 1964 Act inapplicable even where that Act applies. It is not possible to accept such a consequence."
xx xx xx xx
59. Having regard to the above, we would, in the first instance, like to comment that claim of ASI that the statue was fragmented and destroyed is totally unfounded. What has happened is that on a big piece of stone there was an idol of Bade Baba. On the two sides of this main idol were two individual idols of Lord Parswanath. In order to carry out construction in the temple, without damaging the main idol or the individual idols of Lord Parswanath the said pieces were dismantled and removed from the dome to protect them from common damage while the construction in the temple is carried out. It was assured at the Bar that after the construction is completed, all the deities, namely, two Parswanaths (left and right), two of Pushpavrishtis and two Chavardaris and two Yaksha and Yakshinis would be placed back at the same spot and in the same form. Bade Baba idol will be reinstalled in the same manner it existed earlier. Such a course of action in the exigency of circumstances, temporarily shifting Bade Baba idol with assurance to shifting back and installing in the same form and at the same place it existed earlier, is taken on record, making the Jain Temple Trust bound by this statement. We may add that such a course of action was upheld by the Madras High Court in Venkatachala Mudaliar v. Sambasiva Mudaliar [AIR 1927 Mad 465] viz to shift an idol from an old temple to a new one, if the same was in the beneficial interest of worshipper community. The said view has also been approved by this Court in Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi, [AIR 1960 SC 100 : (1960) 1 SCR 773] SCR para 40."
xx xx xx xx W.P. No.15316 of 2016 9
65. We have already held that ASI has no jurisdiction in the matter and the archaeological site in question is governed by the 1964 Act, over which it is the State Government authorities who are competent to play their statutory role in accordance with the provisions of the 1964 Act. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, Archaeological Survey of India v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 MPLJ 323: AIR 2013 MP 105, has directed the Trust to submit an application for grant of permission to raise construction of the temple to preserve and protect the idol of Bade Baba. Direction is also issued to the State Government to consider the application, in accordance with law, within a period of two months. We are of the opinion that while considering this application, the competent authority under the 1964 Act would specifically consider the aforesaid issue/aspect as well. We are leaving the matter to the experts/public functionaries under the 1964 Act with a hope that they would weigh the positions taken by both sides on this limited aspect about the nature of construction and to find an appropriate solution. In case the State Government has already taken a decision on the application of the Jain Temple Trust, but the aforesaid aspect is not dealt with, we direct the State Government to take decision in this behalf within a period of two months. It would also be open to the Trust to press the argument that Jains are declared religious minority and therefore, Jain community enjoys the religious freedom, as a fundamental right, guaranteed under Article 29 of the Constitution. It is their case that the Temple Trust had performed all necessary rituals as required under the Jain religion and followed at the time of temporary shifting of the idol and also before deciding to have the outer structure of the temple as per Agamas while performing these rituals are performed of Agamas by Suri Mantras. Their plea shall also be kept in mind while taking the decision. We further make it clear that if the Government functionaries approve of the construction, the appellants shall not be allowed to challenge it again."
6- A perusal of the order of Supreme Court shows that it was observed W.P. No.15316 of 2016 10 that appellants shall not be allowed to challenge the decision of the Government functionaries if it approves the construction. The respondent No.2 filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court aggrieved against such direction. The said Writ Petition (Civil) No.196/2015 [Jain Sanskriti Raksha Manch vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & anr.] was dismissed on 24.04.2015 when the following order was passed:-
"Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
In our view, the petitioner may approach the High Court instead of filing this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
However, in the event the petitioner files a writ petition before the High Court, the same shall be considered on its own merit in accordance with law."
7- In terms of the liberty granted, the respondent No.2 filed a writ petition before this Court bearing W.P. No.8993/2015 [Jain Sanskrati Raksha Manch vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh] which was dismissed on 03.07.2015 wherein it was held as under:-
"Now the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court against the order Annexure-P-6. This order has been passed in pursuance to the order passed by the Supreme Court quoted above. The Supreme Court has clearly observed in the order that "we further make it clear that if the Government functionaries approve of the construction, the appellants shall not be allowed to challenge it again." In that case, the present petitioner was also an intervenor.
It is contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner W.P. No.15316 of 2016 11 that the present petitioner was not accorded an opportunity of hearing before passing the order, hence the order is bad in law. This is not the condition precedent as fixed by the Supreme Court in the SLP that the present petitioner be also accorded an opportunity of hearing. There is no requirement of rule of law in this regard. The petitioner is a registered society. After considering all the facts of the case, the competent authority accorded permission for construction."
8- A writ appeal bearing W.A. No.534/2015 (Jain Sanskrati Raksha Manch vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh) was filed before this Court which was also dismissed on 26.08.2015. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that a Special Leave Petition is pending before Supreme Court against an order passed in appeal by this Court.
9- It is thereafter, an application was filed before the Tribunal by one Study Circle Society claiming the following reliefs:-
"In the premises aforesaid it is respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow this petition and by an appropriate order or direction the respondents may please be restrained from taking any further construction activities of the new temple (shelter temple) of Bade Baba and by a mandatory direction the respondent No.7 be directed to remove or dismantled the temple and by an appropriate direction/order declare that the order dated 26-7-2014 passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Administration and Culture, Government of Madhya Pradesh (Respondent No.3) is void, without jurisdiction and illegal."
10- The petitioner challenged the locus standi of the Study Circle Society W.P. No.15316 of 2016 12 to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by raising an objection that the present application has been filed on the basis of documents filed by Jain Sanskriti Raksha Manch - respondent No.2 and by Mohd. Azam in the writ petitions, which were dismissed by this Court earlier. In reply to such assertion, the stand of the Respondent No. 1 - applicant before the Tribunal in the rejoinder reads as under:-
"(iv) Regarding question of locus standi, it is settled law that any person having no personal issue involved in the matter may file PIL. In the petition the petitioner has explained as to how he has a right to institute the instant proceedings. It is true that after visiting the temple of Bade Baba the petitioner contacted several person including Jain Sanskriti Raksha Manch, Azam Khan, Shri Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate and other persons to help him in the matter of filing of PIL and they all helped and cooperated with him and have supplied various documents so that for facts the petitioner may not commit any wrong. Jain Sanskriti Raksha Manch has recently supplied information relating to the latest SLP."
It is thus apparent that an Original Application was filed by respondent No.1 on the basis of information and documents supplied by Respondent No. 2 and others.
11- While hearing the said Original Application, the Tribunal initially passed an order on 18.03.2015. The said order read as under:-
"Rejoinder as been filed by the Applicant to the reply filed by Respondent No.7, the same is ordered to be taken on record.
Shri Sachin K.Verma, Learned Government Counsel submits that replies on behalf of other Respondents have been W.P. No.15316 of 2016 13 already filed.
It is submitted by Shri Hemant Sharma, Learned Counsel appearing with Shri Pulkit Godha, Advocate submits that the subject matter of this application has already been adjudicated upon by the Hon'ble High Court of MP in WP No.1220/2006 vide its order dated 20.05.2006 which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5529/2014 by its judgment dated 09.05.2014. Shri Shrivastav submits that this is the third round of litigation on the same subject matter.
We were inclined to dispose of this matter today but despite having filed the rejoinder, none has put in appearance on behalf of the Applicant. In the interest of justice, we adjourn the matter in order to enable the Applicant or his Counsel to be present on the next date.
List on 6th May, 2016."
12- It is thereafter, a miscellaneous application was filed by respondent No.2 for impleadment, which was allowed on 06.05.2016. It was allowed though, the applicant's counsel as well as respondent - present petitioner were given time to submit their reply. The said order read as under:-
"Dr. M.S. Kachhawa, Learned Counsel who appears on behalf of Jain Sanskriti Raksha Manch has filed M.A. No.336/2016 for being impleaded as party Respondent. Copy of the same has been furnished to the Learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as the Learned Counsel for the Respondent. They may submit their reply to the same, if they desire.
The M.A. No.336/2016 is allowed.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.7 prays for time to submit the certain documents.
Time prayed for is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 22nd July, 2016."W.P. No.15316 of 2016 14
13- It is thereafter, the impugned order has been passed on 27.05.2016, which has been reproduced above.
14- Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection that the remedy against an order passed by the Tribunal is by way of appeal before the Supreme Court in terms of Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act (for short "NGT Act"). It is also submitted that the issue before this Court was only in respect of restoration of Bade Baba Temple and not in respect of remaining land whether it was a protected forest or not. He relies upon an order passed by the Supreme Court reported as (1999) 9 SCC 17 [Chanan Singh and sons vs. Collector Central Excise and others); (2012) 8 SCC 524 [Cicily Kallarackal vs. Vehicle Factory]; (2015) 6 SCC 773 [Union of India vs. Shri Kant Sharma] and (1998) 98 ELT 303 [Colour-Chem Ltd. vs. Union of India (FB)].
15- On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner raised an argument that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute over the subject matter which was decided by this Court more so when an appeal before the Supreme Court stands dismissed. Once the competent court of jurisdiction has adjudicated upon the issues, the same could not be raised or entertained by the Tribunal. The settled issues are now been raised again before the Tribunal, therefore, the Tribunal could not entertain such Original Application. Therefore, the order passed is patently without jurisdiction. It W.P. No.15316 of 2016 15 is also argued that in terms of Section 14(3) of the NGT Act, no application for adjudication of the dispute can be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made before within a period of six months from the date from which the cause of action first arose. It is argued that the land in question was excluded from being included as protected forest way back on 5.4.1999, therefore, the cause of action arose to the aggrieved person on the said date. The applicant before the Tribunal or Respondent No. 2 have failed to invoke the jurisdiction of any Court all these years till 2016, thus the Tribunal could not assume the jurisdiction over the subject matter as this Court has not found that communication dated 5.4.1999 in respect of the land of village Kundalpur, Fatehpur and Tirgarh as illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not to raise any new construction, but to restore the temples that too after the permission of the State Government.
16- We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that a matter, which stands concluded by an order of this Court and subsequently affirmed by an order of the Supreme Court, could not have been entertained again by the Tribunal under the guise of jurisdiction under the NGT Act. The writ petitions were filed by the Archaeological Survey of India and in public interest by Mohd. Azam Khan. Both the writ petitions were dismissed finding that the land admeasuring 158.62 acres is not declared as protected forest in the village Kundalpur. Though the order mentions the land measuring 158.62 acres has not been declared as protected forest, but, W.P. No.15316 of 2016 16 the said land is of village Kundalpur alone whereas the land measuring 34.35 acres and 6.5 acres were also excluded as the protected forest in respect of village Fatehpur and Tirgarh respectively vide letter dated 5.4.1999. Once such finding has attained finality with the dismissal of appeal by the Supreme Court, no Tribunal or Court can re-examine the said finding in any manner.
17- We do not find any merit in the objection raised by the respondent No.2 that the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge an order passed by the Tribunal is only by way of appeal before the Supreme Court. If the Tribunal has the jurisdiction over the subject matter then an order passed by the Tribunal in respect of such subject matter can be challenged only by way of an appeal before the Supreme Court, but, if the jurisdiction of the Tribunal has been invoked after the matter stands concluded by this Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court, the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is itself is not tenable. The jurisdiction was invoked to circumvent the bar put by the Supreme Court. The respondent No. 2 created a proxy person that is respondent No. 1 to invoke jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Such jurisdiction was invoked to circumvent the order passed by this Court as affirmed by the Supreme Court in the first round of litigation. In the second round of litigation, the writ petition filed by the respondent No.2 was dismissed. An appeal against the said order was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 has prompted a proxy to file an application before the Tribunal so as to avoid the rigor of the order passed by the Supreme Court. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal has been invoked not to agitate an W.P. No.15316 of 2016 17 issue of environment in bona-fide manner, but, in a clandestine manner to misled the Tribunal and the Tribunal has unfortunately allowed itself to be misled by the respondents No.1 and 2.
18- There is no dispute with the propositions laid down in the judgments referred to by Mr. Sanghi. It is settled law that if there is alternate statutory remedy, an aggrieved person must avail such remedy. But the issue is jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the light of an earlier order of this Court as affirmed by Supreme Court. Therefore, the question of a remedy of appeal does not arise.
19- Still further, we find that the intervention application was allowed by the Tribunal without giving opportunity to the petitioner to file reply though the order mentions that the reply be filed by the present petitioner and the applicant before the Tribunal. But, on the same day, such an application was allowed. Still further, the impugned order has been passed on 27.05.2016 when the miscellaneous application was filed on the same day and it was disposed of on the same day without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to controvert the assertion made by the intervenor - present respondent No.2.
20- We find that the respondent No.2 having agitated the matter before this Court and later before the Supreme Court and again by filing a writ W.P. No.15316 of 2016 18 petition before this Court, could not again invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal firstly by prompting the applicant i.e. Study Circle Society to file an Original Application and then becoming an intervenor before the Tribunal. It is flagrant abuse of process of law to affect the rights of the petitioner in respect of the land and the temples which were excluded from being protected forest. Since the respondent No.2 has invoked the multiple jurisdictions claiming the same relief but having remained unsuccessful again approached the Tribunal through a proxy, we find that for such flagrant abuse of process of the law the respondent No.1 and 2 must compensate petitioner for unwarranted litigation foisted on it. The application filed before the Tribunal was collusive and lacks bona-fides. The initiation of proceedings before the Tribunal itself is thus without jurisdiction.
21- Consequently, we allow the present writ petition and hold that the Original Application filed by the Study Circle Society was not maintainable before the Tribunal and quash all subsequent proceedings being without jurisdiction. The Respondent No.1 and 2 shall pay cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each to the petitioner within three months.
(HEMANT GUPTA) (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
Chief Justice Judge
Khan*
Digitally signed by
HIDAYAT KHAN
Date: 2017.11.09 17:32:07
+05'30'