Santosh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3118 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4132/2019

1. Santosh Kumar S/o Shri Bal Ram, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Jat, Village 4Ml, Post Office 5-E-Chhoti (Naiwala), Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar.

2. Arvind S/o Shri Pappu Ram Jakhar, Aged About 34 Years, B/c Jat, Village 4Ml, Post Office 5-E-Chhoti (Naiwala), Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector Sri Ganganagar.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar.

3. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sri Ganganagar.

4. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat 4Ml, Post Office 5-E-

Chhoti (Naiwala), Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. C. S. Kotwani
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG
                               MR. Rakesh Arora
                               Mr. Manish Tak

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Judgment

04/02/2021

1. The petitioners herein have filed the present writ petition

under the caption of 'Public Interest Litigation' inter alia laying

challenge to construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan in village

4ML, Post Office 5-E-Chhoti (Naiwala), Tehsil & District Sri

Gangangar.

(2 of 3) [CW-4132/2019]

2. Mr. C. S. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued

that by Resolution No.3 adopted by the Gram Panchayat, in its

meeting held on 20.12.2018, it was decided to construct a Gram

Panchayat Bhawan adjacent to 'Atal Seva Kendra'. He argued that

in the guise of the resolution so adopted, the respondent - Gram

Panchayat has constructed the Gram Panchayat Bhawan on the

public road.

3. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards various

photographs placed as Annex.3 of the writ petition and highlighted

that the Gram Panchayat Bhawan is being constructed on public

road and that too out of building line.

4. Considering petitioners' contention, this Court vide order

dated 15.03.2019 restrained the Gram Panchayat from raising

construction, and following order was passed :

"In the meanwhile and until further orders, the respondent - Gram Panchayat 4ML is restrained from raising construction over the land forming part of the road."

5. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the State as well

as by the Gram Panchaat.

6. Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned AAG appearing for the respondent

- State, submitted that petitioners' contention is factually

incorrect. He carefully read the resolution of the Gram Panchayat

and pointed out that there were two rooms and a hall in 'Atal Seva

Kendra' and Gram Panchayat Office was being operated in one of

the rooms of 'Atal Seva Kendra' and adjacent to that e-mitra was

functioning and since Gram Panchayat did not have its own Office,

it was decided to construct a 'Bhawan' on the place where e-mitra

center was being operated.

(3 of 3) [CW-4132/2019]

7. Learned Additional Advocate General placed for perusal of

the Court photographs of the old 'Bhawan' (which are taken on

record) and the impugned construction and pointed out that the

petitioners' assertion that 'Panchayat Bhawan' is being constructed

on public road so also the contention that it is being raised beyond

the building line is factually incorrect.

8. Heard.

9. Upon perusal of the material available on record more

particularly the resolution No.3 adopted by the Gram Panchayat in

its meeting dated 20.12.2018 and the photographs placed on

record today, we are of the firm view that the Gram Panchayat

Bhawan in question is being constructed neither on public road nor

the same is beyond the building line.

10. A perusal of the photographs clearly shows that adjacent to

'Atal Seva Kendra' an e-mitra office in a small room was being

operated and it is exactly on such location, the respondents are

constructing Gram Panchayat Bhawan.

11. A perusal of Google map and the map placed by the

respondents, along with the reply, is also suggestive of the fact

that the construction existed even prior to the impugned

construction and the road was not a straight road, as alleged by

the petitioners.

12. This being the position, we do not find any illegality in the

construction under consideration.

13. The writ petition, therefore, fails.

(DINESH MEHTA),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ

134-A.Arora/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)