Disputed land status and possession cannot be adjudicated in a PIL absent clear proof of encroachment.

The petitioner, a journalist and RTI activist, filed a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 seeking protection of alleged Government and forest land at Village Kohadiya, District Korba, particularly Khasra Nos. 486/1 and 491/1, recorded as “Bade Jhad Ka Jungle.”

He alleged that Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO) and/or its contractors had encroached upon and used the land for a concrete batching plant, labour hutments, a boundary wall and other construction activities without requisite statutory permissions.

The petitioner relied on information obtained under the RTI Act, a complaint dated 28 August 2023, and a non-cognizable report, and sought stoppage of the activities, removal of encroachments and restoration of the land.

The State submitted that the allegations required verification through demarcation and spot inspection by the competent revenue, forest and other authorities.

BALCO and Vedanta Limited disputed the alleged encroachment, contending that the land had been allotted to BALCO and possession had been handed over by the State between 1968 and 1975, with necessary permissions, premium and compensation having been obtained or paid.

The respondents further contended that the petitioner had previously raised substantially the same grievance before the Tahsildar and in W.P.(C) No. 5553 of 2022, which was dismissed on 05 January 2023.

The Court applied the principles governing the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, including that a writ of mandamus requires a clear legal right, a corresponding public duty and a demonstrable violation warranting judicial intervention.

In a PIL, the petitioner must establish a genuine public injury through credible and sufficiently clear material; disputed questions of title, possession, demarcation and factual encroachment ordinarily cannot be conclusively determined merely on the basis of allegations.

The Court also considered the legal significance of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 in relation to the respondents’ contention that the land had been allotted and possession delivered before the Act came into force, without finally adjudicating that issue.

The Court further applied the principle that suppression of material facts and repeated invocation of forums concerning the same grievance may disentitle a litigant to discretionary writ relief.

The Court found that the petitioner’s case depended upon disputed factual questions regarding the character of the land, its allotment, possession, demarcation and the legality of the respondents’ use.

Although the land was stated in revenue records to be “Bade Jhad Ka Jungle,” that description by itself did not conclusively establish encroachment or unauthorized activity, particularly when BALCO and Vedanta asserted lawful allotment, long-standing possession and statutory permissions.

The Court also noted that the same or substantially similar grievance had been raised before the Tahsildar and in an earlier writ proceeding, which had been dismissed after observing that the petitioner lacked an affected legal or fundamental right and that remedial measures had been taken by the authorities.

Since no clear case of illegal encroachment or activity was established on the available material, the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court was not warranted.

The PIL was accordingly dismissed.

However, the Court clarified that the dismissal would not prevent the competent authorities from verifying the status, possession, demarcation and use of the land and from taking appropriate action in accordance with law if any unauthorized occupation or violation is found.