Salman Khan Denied Interim Relief In Defamation Suit Regarding Panvel Land Parcel

Khan, as interim relief, had sought injunction against one Ketan Kakkad, YouTuber Sandeep Phogat, Paras Bhat, Ujjwal Narain, Facebook Inc, Facebook India Online Services Private Ltd, Twitter Inc, Twitter Communications India Private, Twitter International Company, YouTube LLC, Google LLC and Google India Pvt Ltd from uploading anything against Khan and his family members.

Judge Anil Laddhad, on Wednesday, rejected Khan's application for interim reliefs.

The bone of contention us a plot measuring 2.5 acres adjoining Khan's palatial farmhouse 'Arpita Farms', in Panvel. Kakkad claimed he had purchased the land parcel from Khan in 1996. According to Khan, Kakkad started blaming him and his family after the forest department cancelled Kakkad's allotment for the land.

Khan's notice of motion for interim reliefs sought directions to take down or disable access to the derogatory content, not limited to the content pointed out but all derogatory content on social media platforms regarding the Panvel Farmhouse. It also sought suspension of the social media accounts of Kakkad, Phogat, Bhat and Narain.

The notice of motion alleged that Kakkad was causing grave and irreparable harm, loss and injury to Khan, his family members, loss of goodwill and reputation to them by publishing defamatory, false, derogatory and libelous posts, messages, tweets, videos, interviews, communications and correspondence.

The plea pointed out that Kakkad had attempted to purchase a plot of land beside Khan's farmhouse in Panvel, however, that transaction was cancelled by the authorities on the ground that it was illegal. But, after the said transaction was cancelled, Kakkad started raising false and baseless accusations that the transaction had been cancelled at the behest of Khan and his family members.

Khan was represented by Advocate Parag Khandar of law firm DSK Legal. He contended that it was the easiest thing to gather some people, get onto social media, and vent out all the anger, but the comments and interviews on social media crossed all boundaries of fair comment by even passing remarks on his religion.

Advocates Abha Singh and Aditya Pratap, appearing for Kakkad, argued that Kakkad's biggest defence was truth and that he, a senior citizen, had filed several FIRs. They also told the court that Kakkad was still an American citizen and a reputable person of the society who came back to India in the year 2014 to lead a retired life with his wife at the Panvel farmhouse land which was purchased in the year 1996.

They told the court that Kakkad had not been able to rightfully access his land since 2014 due to the encumbrances caused by the actor and his family by erecting a huge gate which obstructed access to Kakkad's land.

The court was also informed that Khan, early on in his career, used to invite Kakkad to his farmhouse for evening pleasantries and also used to often access Kakkad's farmhouse land for jogging and fishing from the stream adjacent to the land.

It was argued that the reason for Kakkad making statements on social media platforms was mainly that he was not given the right of way to visit his own temple and also was not even granted any sort of electricity for light let alone a bulb by the said authorities of the area.

"He has approached all the departments for his grievances like the Forest Department, etc. He has also filed complaints and FIRs and due inquiry is instituted. The cases are also pending before the respective courts," the lawyers argued, adding that Kakkad had acted as an activist by revealing the facts on a social media platform with respect to the illegal constructions in eco-sensitive area known as the Matheran Eco-Sensitive Zone, thereby causing immense harm to the environment.

They added that the videos/tweets uploaded on the platforms YouTube, Facebook and Twitter were uploaded when Kakkad decided to speak about his dire situation and make the public aware about the same and that the videos were not obscene and did not use foul language.

It was also argued that Kakkad had made the statements in public interest as the environment was a part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and further, under Article 51(A)(g) it was the fundamental duty of every citizen to protect the environment. Further it is the duty of every Indian and the State to protect Wildlife.