Madras High Court Dismisses PIL Alleging Alienation of Reserved Forest Land, Imposes ₹20 Lakh Costs on Petitioner

Filing Petitions with Suppression of Material Facts Will Be Discouraged: Madras High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation which sought to challenge the alienation of 40.95 acres of land in Thirumullaivoyal village, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu. The Court held that the PIL lacked bona fides, suppressed material facts, and was filed with ulterior motives. It imposed ₹20 lakhs in costs on the petitioner and restrained him from filing PILs for one year without prior court permission.

The petitioner, T.H. Rajmohan, claimed that the land in question, classified as “reserved forest land” since 1905, was illegally alienated and sold by the assignee (Imperial Chemical Industries Limited and its successors) in violation of the terms of assignment. He sought to quash the government order permitting such alienation (G.O.Ms.No.571, Revenue Department, dated 29.09.2007) and requested that 13 acres of the remaining land in Survey No. 209/2 be marked as reserved forest land.

The petitioner alleged that the land was declassified as “reserved forest” under suspicious circumstances, facilitated by influential individuals, including a former MLA (respondent no. 13). He further contended that the classification change violated the terms of the assignment and sought to safeguard the remaining extent of land.

Whether the PIL was barred by laches (inordinate delay in filing).

Whether the land was de-notified as “reserved forest” in 1962, as claimed by the respondents.

Whether the petitioner had suppressed material facts, such as the de-notification of the land and prior judicial decisions.

Whether the petitioner filed the PIL bona fide or with ulterior motives.

The Court noted that the petitioner sought to challenge a government order (G.O.Ms.No.571) issued in 2007, but filed the PIL only in 2024 — after a delay of 17 years. The petitioner failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the delay in the affidavit. The Court emphasized that PILs are meant for public welfare and cannot be entertained when the petitioner is guilty of unexplained laches.

The Court found that the land in question had been de-notified as “reserved forest” through G.O.Ms.No.3676, Food and Agriculture Department, dated 01.12.1962. The Advocate Commissioner’s report confirmed that the entire 40.95 acres had been removed from the “reserved forest” category and subsequently developed into residential townships. The petitioner’s affidavit made no mention of this de-notification, leading the Court to conclude that material facts had been deliberately withheld.

The Court observed numerous inconsistencies in the petitioner’s statements:

The petitioner claimed an annual income of ₹5 lakhs in his affidavit but stated in court that his income was ₹3 lakhs.

His affidavit mentioned his age as 67 years, while his Aadhaar card and PAN card reflected conflicting dates of birth (1962 and 1963), making his actual age 62.

Despite claiming to lack proficiency in English, the petitioner signed an affidavit and relied on English documents, raising questions about his role in drafting the petition.

The Court concluded that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed facts, particularly regarding the de-notification of the land in 1962.

The Court highlighted that the disputed land had undergone multiple transactions and was now developed into residential complexes. The petitioner’s allegations, amplified through media coverage, had caused significant reputational and financial harm to private developers (respondents 12 and 13). The Court noted that this supported the inference that the PIL was filed with oblique motives.

The Court held that the petition lacked bona fides and appeared to have been orchestrated by unknown parties using the petitioner as a front. It cited the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010), which emphasized the need to preserve the sanctity of PILs and prevent their misuse.

On Laches:

"A delay of 17 years in challenging a government order is not only excessive but indicative of a lack of genuine public interest."

"The petitioner’s failure to disclose the 1962 de-notification, despite filing a 35-page affidavit detailing the history of the land, points to deliberate misrepresentation."

"When PILs are filed with oblique motives and cause harm to third parties, courts must deter such conduct through exemplary costs."

The Madras High Court dismissed the PIL with the following orders:

Dismissal of PIL: The Court dismissed the PIL, holding it was not filed in good faith.

The petitioner was directed to pay ₹10 lakhs to respondent no. 12 (Vishal Developers) for damages caused by reputational harm. An additional ₹10 lakhs was imposed as costs, payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. Costs were to be paid within four weeks, with an affidavit of compliance to be filed thereafter.

Restriction on Filing PILs: The petitioner was restrained from filing any PIL in the Madras High Court for one year, except with prior court permission.

This judgment serves as a warning against the misuse of PILs to pursue personal or ulterior motives. By imposing substantial costs and sanctions, the Madras High Court reinforced the need to uphold the integrity of public interest litigation. It also highlighted the importance of disclosing all material facts, particularly in cases involving long-standing disputes over land and government decisions.

Date of decision : December 4, 2024