Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Raj Kumar Age 48 Years vs Union Of India on 10 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 03.03.2025
Pronounced on: 10.03.2025
WP(C) PIL No. 2/2025
CM No. 577/2025
Raj Kumar age 48 years
S/O Sh. Madan Lal
R/O 136, Janipur Colony, Jammu
....Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gagan Kohli, Advocate.
Vs
1. Union of India, through Secretary
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Govt. of India., Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road,
New Delhi.
2. UT of Jammu and Kashmir through
Commissioner/Secretary to Govt.
Forest Department, Ecology and Environment
Department, Jammu, Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
3. UT of J&K, through
Commissioner/Secretary Govt.,
Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
4. Financial Commissioner, Jammu.
5. Divisional Commissioner, Jammu.
6. Deputy Commissioner, Jammu.
7. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jammu.
8. Divisional Forest Officer, Kathua.
9. DIGF Central (Regional Officer),
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
10. Secretary Pollution Control Board, Jammu.
11. Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua.
12. Dushyant Kumar Ubbot S/O Sh. Vishnu Dutt,
R/O Ward No. 1, Kathua.
13. Chetan Mahajan alias Chetan Gupta
S/O Kasturi Lal Mahajan R/O Ward No. 4, Kathua.
..... Respondent(s)
2 WP(C) PIL No. 2/2025
Through: Mr. Bhavesh Bhushan, Adv. for R-13.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Per: Chowdhary-J
01. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, as
Public Interest Litigation, seeking a writ of certiorari,
quashing and setting aside the Order dated 22.06.2024
passed in the file No. 9-JK-060/2022, whereby ‘In-Principle
Approval’ with regard to the ‘gair mumkin jhad’ (State land)
measuring 05 kanals 05 marlas falling under khasra No.
667 min/599 situated at Maha, Tehsil and District Kathua
has been granted allegedly in violation of J&K Big Land
Estates Abolition Act, 2007 and Forest Conservation Rules,
2022 and also seeking a writ of mandamus, commanding
the respondents No. 2 to 4 to constitute an independent
committee for conducting an enquiry with regard to the
illegal action of the respondents of issuing fard, executing
sale deed, changing the nature and attesting Mutation No.
707 of 2024 dated 18.09.2024 of ‘gair mumkin jhad’ land
falling in khasra No. 667 min/599 situated at Mehah Patti
Tehsil and District Kathua with a purpose to open a
commercial petrol pump on a wood waste and further
commanding the respondents to restrain the respondent
3 WP(C) PIL No. 2/2025
No. 13 and his agents from interfering into the ‘gair
mumkin jhad’ falling in khasra No. 667min/599 situated at
Mehah Patti Tehsil & District Kathua already escheated to
the Government.
02. The petitioner has asserted in his petition, that in village
Maha tehsil and district Kathua, there exists a gair
mumkin khadd measuring 9 kanal 14 marlas falling under
khasra No. 667/559 and along wi th the said gair mumkin
khadd, a ‘gair mumkin Jhad’ measuring 12 Kanal 13
Marlas also exists, which is a dense forest area consisting
of thousands of trees, vegetation and plantation near khad;
that the said ‘gair mumkin jhad’ stands escheated to the
State after the coming into force of the J&K Big Landed
Estates Abolition Act, Svt. 2007; that despite passing of the
said Act, the fard intikhab of the aforesaid ‘gair mumkin
jhad’ was issued fraudulently by the revenue agency and
land measuring 5 kanals 5 marlas, out of the said ‘gair
mumkin jhad’ was purchased by the private respondent No.
13 from Makhan Singh and others and Rakesh Kumar,
despite having a ban in the UT of J&K for registration of
sale deed with regard to the land in question for opening a
petrol pump of Indian Oil Corporation in connivance with
the revenue officials, in regard whereof mutation bearing
No. 707/2024 dated 18.09.2024 was also attested by the
Tehsildar Kathua.
4 WP(C) PIL No. 2/2025
03. It is pleaded in the petition that being aggrieved of the
mutation (supra), the petitioner herein filed a Revision
Petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, which
was transferred by the respondent No. 3 to Additional
Commissioner vested with the powers of Additional
Commissioner, who did not take any action initially and
kept the matter pending without assigning any reasons;
that being aggrieved of the inaction on the part of the
Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, the petitioner filed a
writ petition-WP(C) No. 3061/2024 for preserving the ‘gair
mumkin jhad’ in public interest, which was allowed to be
withdrawn with a liberty granted to the petitioner to
challenge the order dated 22.06.2024, whereby ‘In principle
Approval’ was granted in favour of the private respondent;
that whole exercise of getting the ‘In principle Approval’ and
‘final approval’ from the Ministry for opening a petrol pump
has been conducted without disclosing the fact that the
‘gair mumkin jhad’ land stands already escheated to the
State.
04. It is further pleaded in the petition that the petitioner has
filed the present Public Interest Litigation against the
inaction of the respondents of converting ‘gair mumkin
jhad’ (State land) into a commercial petrol pump in
violation of the J&K Big Landed Estate Abolition Act, Svt.
2007 and has also challenged the ‘In-Principle Approval’
5 WP(C) PIL No. 2/2025
granted vide order dated 22.06.2024 issued by the Regional
Officer Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change, in favour of the respondent No. 13 in violation of
the principles of Forest Conservation Rules 2022.
05. Pursuant to the notice, the respondent No. 13 has filed the
objections, stating therein that ‘In Principal approval’ has
been validly granted by the Central Government by
exercising its powers under section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980; that any person aggrieved by an
order of decision made by any authority under Section 2 of
the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 may prefer an appeal to
the National Green Tribunal (NGT) within thirty days from
such order or decision; that the petitioner instead of
availing alternate efficacious remedy of filing an appeal to
the NGT, has straightway come to this Court invoking writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
as such, the petition filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable because of the remedy available with him,
inasmuch as, several High Courts across the country have
passed orders refusing to exercise their extraordinary writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
in view of the alternate efficacious remedy available before
the National Green Tribunal; that the petitioner has not
come to this High Court with clean hands and has
concealed material facts in the present PIL, which have
6 WP(C) PIL No. 2/2025
been brought forth by the answering respondent No. 13
hereinabove and besides, there is already multiplicity of
litigation before the revenue and civil courts in respect of
the lis forming the subject-matter of the present PIL
petition.
06. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
07. It is needless to emphasize that the requirement of locus
standi of a party to litigation is mandatory because the
legal capacity of the party to any litigation, whether in
private or public action, in relation to any specific remedy
sought for, has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.
08. The Apex Court in S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India reported
as 1981 Supp. SCC 87 laying a note of caution held that
we must be careful to see that the member of the public,
who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting
bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or
political motivation or other oblique consideration. The
court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians
and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to
gain a political objective. The Apex Court again in a case of
State of H.P Vs. A Parent of a Student of Medical
College, Shimla & Ors reported as 1985(3) SCC 169 has
7 WP(C) PIL No. 2/2025
held that Public Interest Litigation is a weapon, which has
to be used with great care and circumspection.
09. It is an admitted fact that the land measuring 5 kanals 5
marlas, which is subject matter of this petition, has been
mutated by the jurisdictional Tehsildar and Revision titled
“Raj Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Kathua & Ors“
against that mutation has been pending with the Divisional
Commissioner, Jammu wherein the private respondent No.
13, namely, Chetan Mahajan @ Chetan Gupta has also
been arrayed as party. It is a matter to be decided by the
revenue authorities regarding as to under what
circumstances the land in question, which the petitioner
claims to be ‘gair mumkin Jhad’, has been mutated in the
name of a private person based on some sale deed.
10. Besides, the matter regarding the subject matter of this
writ petition being an issue before the revenue authorities,
admittedly, regarding the same property, a civil suit for
declaration has also been filed by Mayank Mahajan and
Vikram Sharma against Dushyant Kumar Ubbot,
respondent No. 12 herein and Chetan Mahajan @ Chetan
Gupta, respondent No. 13 herein, which is subjudice before
the court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division (CJM),
Kathua. The subject matter of this petition being the
subject matter of the Revision before the Divisional
Commissioner, Jammu and the pendency of a civil suit
8 WP(C) PIL No. 2/2025
regarding the same subject matter before the civil court, in
our considered opinion, can be an impediment in filing this
Public Interest Litigation as the parties before the revenue
forum and the civil court shall have the opportunity of
determination of the rights with regard to the subject
matter of this petition.
11. For the foregoing reasons and the observations made
hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that no
further proceedings are required to be taken in this
petition, which has been styled as Public Interest Litigation
by the petitioner, in view of the available remedies before
the fora stated hereinabove, as already availed.
12. The petition is accordingly dismissed along with connected
application(s), if any. There shall be no order as to costs.
13.
(M A CHOWDHARY) (TASHI RABSTAN)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
JAMMU
10.03.2025
NARESH/SECY
Whether order is speaking: Yes
Whether order is reportable: Yes
Naresh Kumar
2025.03.12 11:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
