C/M Janta Inter College And ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 9784 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

? AFR
 
Court No. - 28
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 65962 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- C/M Janta Inter College And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- H.P. Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

Heard Shri H.M. Srivastava, holding brief of Shri H.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to take a final decision on the resolution by the Consolidation Committee, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition as also on an application/ objection of the petitioner under Section 9-B copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

It appears some meeting took on 16.10.2014.  This meeting is alleged to have been attended by the members of the Consolidation Committee.  As many as four names of Members of the Consolidation Committee are mentioned and the names of certain other persons are also mentioned, and they are also described as a Member.  Prima facie, the other names appear to be those of members of the Gram Panchayat and the meeting appears to be a meeting of Gram Panchayat and not the Consolidation Committee as is sought to be convened in the writ petition. 

It is further evident from the extract of the proceedings that in the meeting petitioner no. 2, who is Manager of the Janta Inter College, Khaparaha, District Jaunpur proposed that since no play ground is available in the village, certain land, namely, plot nos. 781, 782, 783 and 784 which land is adjacent to the Janta Inter College, Khaparaha, District Jaunpur, be reserved for play-ground for the children of the school and a resolution to this effect was passed. 

On the strength of the resolution aforesaid, it appears that an objection under Section 9-B has been preferred by the Committee of Management of Janta Inter College, Khaparaha, District Jaunpur and also its Manager with the prayer that the land lying towards the south of the Vidyalaya, namely, plot nos. 781, 782, 783 and 784, having an area of 0.300 hectares, be reserved for play ground.  It has further been prayed that plot no. 701, area 0.066 hectares, earlier reserved for this purpose may also be included in the land to be reserved for play ground. 

On the strength of the above, a mandamus has been sought for expeditious disposal of the objection filed under Section 9-B as also a decision on the resolution.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision reported in 1969 RD 5, Gaon Samaj Didhauni vs. DDC, U.P. Lucknow in support of his contentions.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, as also the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to note that for all practical purposes the objection under Section 9-B filed by the petitioner is for the benefit of the petitioner's  institution and not the villagers as a whole.

As far as reservation of land for public purpose is concerned, the same is made while preparing the Statement of Principles in accordance with the procedure provided under Section 8 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 

It is further clear from the resolution (Annexure-2) that in the Statement of  Principles prepared, land had already been earmarked for a play-ground.  The area of such land is 0.060 hectares.  This area was considered to be adequate for being reserved for a play-ground while preparing the Statement of the Principles. 

The petitioners, having obtained a resolution probably from the Gaon Sabha, at the instance of the Manager, are seeking reservation of a further 0.0300 hectares, as also the earlier area earmarked for play-ground on the land lying vacant adjacent to the petitioner-institution. 

The salient point that emerges from the facts noticed above is: that an objection has been filed by a private educational institution seeking reservation of land lying adjacent to the institution itself for being used as play-ground by its students.  

In my considered opinion,  the objection has been filed by the petitioners in their  personal interest and not in the interest of the public at large.   The petitioner-institution is admittedly a private educational institution and even if it is performing a public function of imparting education, this by itself does not make it anything more than a private institution and, therefore, in my considered opinion, does not entitle it to land reserved for a public purpose in the statement of principles.

In my considered opinion, land of public utility cannot be reserved for the benefit of private educational institutions and in such view of the matter, the objection filed by the petitioner is itself prima facie not maintainable and, therefore, no direction is liable to be issued for its expeditious disposal. 

In this connection, it would  be relevant to observe that the Consolidation Committee in consultation with the Assistant Consolidation Officer as provided under Section 8 of the Act  has already earmarked plot no. 701, area 0.060 hectares, for the play-ground and the fact that the petitioner seeks to add an additional area of 0.300 hectares of land for the same purpose smacks of mala fides and appears to be nothing but an attempt to grab the land of the Gaon Sabha which under no the circumstances should be permitted.  For the same reason there appears no justification for  reserving any further land for play-ground over and above what has already been reserved in the State of Principles.

Besides, there exists no provision of law where under land of the Gaon Sabha can be reserved for a public purpose and thereafter settled with a private educational institution; as is being sought by means of the objection under Section 9-B and this writ petition.

The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner has no application in the instant case, being on a different point.  It holds that the words 'primary and other schools' used in sub-rule 2 of Rule 24-A would include a degree college.  This is not the issue in the instant petition.  The second point decided in the judgment cited is that the DDC can amend the Statement of Principles which again is not a question that arises for determination in the instant case.

Accordingly, and for the reasons given above, I find no justification to grant the relief prayed for in the writ petition, which is, therefore, dismissed.

In the midst of the dictation of this order,  the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for permission to withdraw the writ petition.  Since the matter had been adjourned on 05.12.2014 to enable  the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the case-law in support of his contentions, and the matter was heard on two separate occasions, the prayer of the learned counsel, was refused.

The learned Standing Counsel is directed to ensure that a copy of this judgment is placed on the record of the case under Section 9-B filed by the petitioner and pending before the respondent no. 3.

Order Date :- 10.12.2014

Priyanka