Refusing to entertain a public interest litigation preferred by a third party and acknowledging the liberal rules pertaining to locus standi for PILs, the Delhi High Court held that the Petitioner has failed to establish the veracity of the bald allegations that individuals, institutions and societies are exploiting the DDA Nazul Rules to obtain public land and then use the said land to obtain large amount of loans from public institutions and upon failure to repay the said loans, they mortgage the said public land.

While condemning the act of the Petitioner, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that “While this Court is cognizant of the liberal rules pertaining to locus vis-à-vis public interest litigation, it must also ensure that busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having oblique interests are not allowed to waste precious judicial time of this court.”

Advocate Khagesh B Jha appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Pramod Gupta appeared for the Respondents

In a nutshell, it is the case of the Petitioner (Justice For All), that it read a news in a newspaper that a school (third Respondent), had been taken over by a bank (fifth Respondent), on account of default of payment of loan. The Petitioner being concerned for education of the students studying there, alleged this act as in violation of Article 21A of the Constitution. The Petitioner also contended that land was given to school under the Government Grants Act, 1895, which supersedes provisions of SARFAESI Act and Transfer of Property Act. However, it was alleged that certain individuals and financial institutions in connivance with officials of DDA were taking over such public land by misusing the SARFAESI Act.

After considering the submission, the Division Bench found that the first Respondent has already filed a petition against the third Respondent before a Single Judge Bench, and interim relief of removing the locks from school has already been granted.

“In the present case, the concerned society and school have already approached this Court to ensure that the school is not shut off for the students to ensure that the fundamental right of children is not affected. Further, the issues pertaining to the non-applicability of the SARFAESI Act to land granted under the GG Act is an issue which can be addressed by the concerned society”, added the Bench.

Considering that the society has appropriate legal remedies available to it and has exercised its right to avail such remedies, the High Court said that it would not be appropriate to entertain a public interest litigation, preferred by a third party.

“The Petitioner, knowing fully well that the Respondent No. 1 society, has approached this Court and has other appropriate remedies available before it, has chosen to come before this Court based on a news report published in the Times of India”, added the Court.

Hence, observing that the Petitioner has taken such a report and attempted to paint a picture wherein the Banks are abusing the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and that the officials of the DDA are allotting Nazul land contrary to the provisions of the DDA Nazul Rules, the High Court dismissed the present petition.

Cause Title: Justice for All v. Laxmi Educational Society and Ors. [Neutral Citation Number: 2023: DHC: 3558-DB]

Click here to read/download Judgment




Delhi High CourtChief Justice Satish Chandra SharmaJustice Subramonium Prasad

Pankaj Bajpai