1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3461/2007 (Sanjay Sitaram Dhote Vs. The State of Mah. & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM :D.D. SINHA & SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 27, 2008. Heard Mr. Kariya for the petitioner, Mr. Doifode, the learned A.G.P., for respondent nos. 1 to 4, and Mr. Dhabe for the respondent no.5. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is propagating a public cause and trying to protect the spirit of the Bhudan movement. It is submitted that the land in question i.e. Survey No. 260/1, admeasuring 10 acres was donated decades ago to the respondent no.5- Board and the Board, in turn, allotted the said land to one Kanoji Thakare. It is contended that sons of Kanoji Thakare exchanged the said land with the builders and put the land to the use 2 which is inconsistent with the spirit of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Bhudan Yagna Act, 1953 and, therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition for necessary direction. Mr. Dhabe, the learned counsel for the petitioner no.5, has submitted that the land was allotted to Kanoji Thakare more than 30 years ago. Kanoji Thakare also died couple of decades ago. The land was inherited by his three sons and out of that two sons have exchanged the land in question with other private owners. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, at the outset, we would like to express that there is no public cause as such being propagated by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the transactions have taken place many years ago and there is no data in this regard placed on record. In the absence thereof as well as specific challenge to the exchange deed, it is not possible for 3 us to treat the present writ petition as public interest litigation. Hence same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE RMP