D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.9175/07 Villagers of Village Bhakrota vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order :: 14th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Sanjay Joshi for the petitioner Mr. R.P. Garg ) Mr. G.S. Bapna ) for the respondents Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. This PIL application has been filed by villagers of Village Bhakrota through Bhanwar Lal Sharma. A prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the State authorities to get the sale deed dated 6.5.95 executed in favour of the respondent nos.9 and 10, cancelled. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a public property has been sold in a clandestine manner, depriving the villagers to use the Dharamshala and its land for public purposes. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondents on the contrary submitted that this is not a public interest litigation, rather Bhanwar Lal Sharma, who is instrumental in this PIL application, was party to several civil litigations and all through the matters were contested in between the parties. It is further submitted that respondent no.6 Tulsi Ram firstly filed civil suit no.416 on 1966 which was decreed on contest in his favour. Thereafter, against which an appeal was filed and the decree was affirmed. Then, there arose a dispute with regard to the possession of the Dharamshala in between the parties which ultimately led to filing of a civil suit no.155 of 1985 which also was decreed in favour of respondent no.6 on 14.4.88 and Bhanwar Lal Sharma and others were restrained from interfering with the possession of Dharamshala in question. The matter was again taken to a competent civil court in suit no.38 of 1999 when an attempt was made by Bhanwar Lal Sharma to dispossess him from the property in question. The suit aforesaid was however, again decreed in favour of respondent no.6 on 4.4.2000 and in compliance of the decree passed by the competent civil suit, respondent no.6 was again put in possession of the property in question. After passing of these decrees by the competent civil court, a sale deed was executed with regard to a part of the property in favour of respondent no.9 and 10, of which they were the tenants. The writ-petitioner now has attempted to raise same question, which was already decided by the competent civil court, by way of filing of this PIL application by suppressing the material facts. Since the matter was already decided by competent civil courts on contest, in our view, this PIL application must be held to be motivated one. In this background, it does not appear to be a case of public interest litigation, rather it appears to be a personal interest litigation to get the personal scores settled by filing such PIL application. The object of PIL is not to frustrate the decrees passed by the competent civil court. The attempt which has been made on the part of the petitioner, in our view, therefore, appears to be highly motivated and a consequence of bias. This PIL application, in this view of the matter, is without any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq),J. (Narayan Roy), C.J. ravi/-