Jaswant Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 571 Chatt

                                                           NAFR

      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       WA No. 167 of 2021

    Jaswant Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri Ramji Singh Thakur
     Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Sankar Nagar
     Nawagarh, Tahsil - Nawagarh, District - Bemetara
     (Chhattisgarh)                        ---- Appellant

                             Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Panchayat And
      Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nawa
      Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

   2. Gram Panchayat Thengabhath Through Secretary, Tahsil-
      Nawagarh, District - Bemetara (Chhattisgarh)

   3. Luttam Sahu W/o Vijay Sahu @ Munna Aged About 40
      Years Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Thengabhath, Village-
      Thengabhath, Tahsil - Nawagarh, District - Bemetara
      (Chhattisgarh)

   4. Vijay Sahu @ Munna S/o Faguram Sahu Aged About 45
      Years R/o Village - Thengabhath, Tahsil - Nawagarh, District
      - Bemetara (Chhattisgarh)

   5. Tahsildar Nawagarh, District - Bemetara (Chhattisgarh)

   6. Collector Bemetara, District - Bemetara (Chhattisgarh),

   7. Chhattisgarh Medical Service Corporation Limited Through
      Managing     Director,  Chhattisgarh    Housing    Board
      Commercial Complex(North West Corner), Sector 27, Atal
      Nagar, Nava Raipur (Chhattisgarh)      ---- Respondents



For Appellant           :-    Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate
For Respondent-State    :-    Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Dy.A.G.
For Respondent No.7     :-    Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate
         Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag.CJ
           Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

Judgment On Board

By

Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag.CJ

24/06/2021

1. Heard.

2. In the writ petition before learned Single Judge, petitioner

was raising grievance that Sub-Health Centre has been

constructed just opposite to his house which would

eventually infect the petitioner and his family members. In

this writ appeal, it is argued that the subject land is a public

road/ pathway, therefore, construction should have been

made at another place which was previously earmarked for

construction of Sub-Health Centre.

3. While dismissing the writ petition, learned Single Judge has

rightly observed that the petitioner not being the owner of

the subject property or interested in the property in any other

manner, he has no locus inasmuch as, he has failed to make

out a case of infringement of any of his fundamental or

statutory rights. While dismissing the petition learned Single

Judge has also reserved liberty to avail the remedy under

the common law.

4. In our considered view, no exception can be carved out for

interference with the order passed by the learned Single

Judge. If the petitioner is not the owner of the subject property where Sub-Health Centre is to be constructed, his

objection to such construction is contrary to the public

interest rather than serving the public interest. Appellant's

apprehension that construction of Sub-Health Centre

opposite to his house would jeopardize the health and safety

of his family members does not hold ground as there is no

foundation for such apprehension. If the appellant's

contention is accepted then all other Health Centers have to

be constructed in a secluded place, miles away from the

villages.

5. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out.

Accordingly, the writ appeal deserves to be and is hereby

dismissed.

                     SD/-                             SD/-

         (Prashant Kumar Mishra)              (Parth Prateem Sahu)
            Acting Chief Justice                      Judge




Ayushi