Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chetan Kamble & Ors.
Background
A roughly 5-acre plot in Mumbai's Sahar area was claimed by the Gonsalves family (later succeeded by Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd.) under an 1894 Deed of Exchange, while various revenue authorities over decades repeatedly flip-flopped on whether the land belonged to the family or had vested in the State Government. In 1995 the State's Revenue Minister ruled in the family's favour, but in 1998 that order was reversed in an ex-parte proceeding where the Gonsalves family was never given a hearing; in 2007 the Minister recalled that 1998 order (restoring the family's ownership) after finding it violated natural justice. Two individuals with lengthy criminal histories then filed a public interest litigation challenging this 2007 order, and the Bombay High Court sided with them, reviving the order against the family, even though the State Government itself had filed affidavits agreeing that the family/Esteem Properties held valid title.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held the PIL was not maintainable because it was, at its core, a private ownership dispute between the State and a private party, not a matter of genuine public interest, and the petitioners' credentials and motives, including their criminal antecedents, should have been scrutinised more carefully before the High Court entertained the case. The Court reaffirmed that courts must verify a PIL petitioner's bona fides and ensure real public interest is at stake, per its earlier ruling in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, and noted the State itself had conceded title to the appellants, further undercutting any claim of public harm. Since the 1998 order (which the PIL sought to revive) had been passed without giving the Gonsalves family a hearing, a clear breach of the mandatory notice requirement in Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, its 2007 recall was justified, and the Court allowed the appeals with costs, restoring the family's/Esteem Properties' title.
Lesson Learnt
Public interest litigation is meant for genuine public harm, not as a backdoor route for private or ill-motivated litigants to reopen a private title dispute the government itself has already accepted; and no administrative or quasi-judicial order that revokes someone's rights can stand if it was passed without giving that person a hearing, regardless of how many rounds of litigation preceded it.