HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7847/2020
1. Bheru Lal S/o Shri Jassa Ram Kharod, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Borda, Tehsil And District Bhilwara.
2. Bheru Lal Gadri S/o Shri Daula Gadri, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Aatun Tehsil And District Bhilwara.
3. Onkar Gadri S/o Dhana Gadri, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Aatun Tehsil And District Bhilwara.
4. Khemaji S/o Ambaji, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Borda, Tehsil And District Bhilwara.
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Udai Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Borda Tehsil And District Bhilwara.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue (Gr.3), Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The District Collector, Bhilwara.
4. Tehsildar (Revenue), Bhilwara.
5. Uit, Bhilwara Through Its Secretary.
6. Gram Panchayat Aatun, Through Secretary, Panchayat Samiti Suwana, Tehsil And District Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, Senior Advocate
and AAG, assisted by Mr. Abhimanyu
Singh
Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
02/01/2023
(Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 08:33:27 PM)
(2 of 7) [CW-7847/2020]
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation seeking to assail the order dated 18.10.2019 (Annex.4), whereby 478 bighas of land categorized as Charagah (Pasture) in the villages Pur, Borda and Aatun were set apart for expansion of Aabadi area of UIT, Bhilwara and simultaneously, equal chunk of land was set apart in the villages Pur and Sakariya Kheda to compensate the reduction in the Charagah land. Challenge is also laid to the orders dated 09.12.2019 (Annex.8), whereby the State Government has granted approval to the said proposal and the order dated 20.12.2019 (Annex.9) passed by the District Collector, Bhilwara, whereby the chunk of land has been entered into the name of UIT, Bhilwara in the Revenue record.
Learned counsel Mr. R.S. Choudhary, representing the petitioners, vehemently and fervently contended that it was mandatory to take consent of the Gram Panchayat under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 (for short, 'the Rules of 1955') before setting apart the pasture land for the expansion of Aabadi land of the UIT, Bhilwara. However, the impugned proposal dated 18.10.2019 was issued without seeking consent of the Gram Panchayat.
It was further submitted that initially the UIT, Bhilwara issued a public notice dated 11.10.2019 inviting objections from all concerned persons regarding conversion of the land in question and the villagers of Gram Panchayat Aatun submitted their objections, but without considering the same, the conversion order has been passed. He further submitted that as much as 132 bighas of compensatory land has been allotted in the Village (Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 08:33:27 PM) (3 of 7) [CW-7847/2020] Sankariya Kheda, which is at a distance of 30 km. from the Village Aatun and thus, entire process is grossly illegal and arbitrary.
He placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Jetha Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.8816/2011 decided on 16.05.2012] and urged that pasture land cannot be divested for any other purpose and the classification thereof can only be changed by the competent authority strictly in accordance with the relevant statues and before doing so, the impact assessment has to be made because the livelihood of the villagers is dependent on animal husbandry and reduction of pasture land area would have serious adverse impact on the natural grazing resources of the villages. Mr. Choudhary submitted that the impugned orders in addition to being in contravention of Rules have been passed without undertaking any survey of this nature and thus, the same are liable to be quashed.
Per contra Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Senior Advocate- cum-AAG, representing the UIT, Bhilwara, and Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned AAG, representing the Revenue Department, urged that during the visit of Hon'ble Chief Minister of Rajasthan, complaints were raised that large number of houses in the Village Pur had been damaged on account of mining activities and thus, the concerned villagers had to be relocated. Accordingly, a plan was chalked out to declassify and convert about 478 bighas of pasture land from the Villages Pur, Borda and Aatun for extension of Aabadi area of the UIT, Bhilwara. They submitted that the State Government is unquestionably empowered to exercise jurisdiction under the Rules of 1955 to convert and divest pasture land for other usage. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by a (Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 08:33:27 PM) (4 of 7) [CW-7847/2020] Division Bench of this court in the case of Gulab Chand & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4117/2002 decided on 02.05.2007], wherein, import of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1955 was considered and it was held that the word "may" appearing in sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 regarding consultation with the Panchayat cannot be read as "shall". Rule 7 does not mandate the Collector to consult the concerned Gram Panchayat in all cases of declassification of pasture land for allotment for agricultural or non-agricultural purposes. It was also submitted that major chunk of compensatory land to recompensate the loss of Charagah land has been allotted in the Gram Panchayat Pur itself and thus, no adverse impact will result on the natural grazing resources of these villagers.
We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned orders and other material placed on record. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1955, which reads as below, empowers the District Collector and the State Government, as the case may be, to change classification of pasture land for agricultural or non-agricultural purposes.
"7. Allotment or setting apart of Pasture Land - (1) the Collector may, in consultation with the Panchayat, change the classification of any pasture land, as defined in sub-section (28) of Section 5 of the Act or any pasture land set apart under section 92 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act of 1956) as unoccupied culturable Government land (Sawai Chak), for allotment for agricultural or any non- agricultural purposes :(Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 08:33:27 PM)
(5 of 7) [CW-7847/2020] Provided that in case where the area of the land sought to be so allotted or set apart exceeds 4 hectares, the Collector shall obtain prior permission of the State Government:
Provided also that any such land, falling within the boundary limits of the Jaipur Region as defined in the Jaipur Development Authority Act. 1982 (Act No. 25 of 1982 within the periphery of 2 km. of a municipality, shall not be allotted except for the purpose of a public utility institution or for expansion of abadi.
(2) Where classification of any pasture land is changed under sub-rule (1). the Collector may set -apart an equal area of unoccupied culturable Government land, if available as pasture land in the same village.
The requirement of consultation with the Gram Panchayat under Rule 7(1) is directory as has been held by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Gulab Chand (supra). That apart, the fact remains that with the increase in the urban population, the need for acquiring additional lands for expansion of Aabadi areas becomes imminent and thus, it is unavoidable to declassify and acquire the pasture lands from adjoining villages so that the Aabadi expansion of the cities can be undertaken in a systematic and organized manner. If this systematic development is not resorted to, the burgeoning populace would indulge in making encroachments, which in turn would lead to problems of larger magnitude.
However, at the same time, the development of Aabadi areas cannot be done in an arbitrary manner and the grazing lands cannot be totally diminished and appropriate compensatory (Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 08:33:28 PM) (6 of 7) [CW-7847/2020] land has to be allotted for the declassified pasture areas. A perusal of the proposal (Annex.4) dated 18.10.2019 forwarded from the office of the District Collector, Bhilwara to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan clearly indicates that the District Collector took care to recommend setting apart of an equivalent chunk of land to compensate the loss caused to the grazing area on account of declassification. In the final order dated 09.12.2019, the State Government has also approved the proposal of the District Collector and as a consequence, by order dated 20.12.2019, relevant Revenue entries have been made, whereby 478 bighas pasture land from revenue villages Pur, Borda and Aatun was declassified and converted for expansion of Aabadi area of UIT and equivalent chunk of land situated in the Villages Pur and Sakariya Kheda were set apart for being used as Gochar (pasture). The reply of the respondents clearly indicates that the District Collector, Bhilwara has diligently taken care to ensure that equivalent chunk of land is allotted for offsetting the loss caused to the Charagah land of the Villages Pur, Borda and Aatun. Additional documents have been filed on record, which include two notifications dated 09.01.2020 and 14.02.2020, whereby these areas have been notified for expansion/extension of Aabadi of UIT Bhilwara. As per the judgment rendered in the case of Gulab Chand (supra), there is no mandate of law that the District Collector should hold prior consultation with the Village Gram Panchayat before changing classification of pasture land by exercising powers under Rule 7(1) of the Rules of 1955. Otherwise also, the present case is one, where the State Government has directed declassification of the pasture land and not the District Collector. Thus, the provisions (Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 08:33:28 PM) (7 of 7) [CW-7847/2020] contained in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1955 do not come to the aid of the petitioners in their endeavour to challenge the impugned orders, which prima facie, do not suffer from any error either factual or legal.
As a consequence, we do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is rejected as such.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
89-Pramod/-
(Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 08:33:28 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)