Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kumbha Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 July, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8625/2021
Kumbha Ram S/o Shri Roopa Ram, Aged About 85 Years, B/c
Meghwal, R/o Musalmano Ki Dhani, Tehsil Dhorimanna, District
Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Revenue
Department, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Barmer.
3. Additional District Programme, Co-Ordinator And Chief
Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.S. Shrimali
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
15/07/2021
This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the
petitioner seeking following reliefs :
"It is, therefore, most humbly and
respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly
be allowed and;
a) By an appropriate writ, order of direction, the
respondents may kindly be directed to construct the
Gram Panchayat Bhawan in the Khasra No.184/2 as
approved by the Gram Panchayat itself, instead of
Khasra No.184.
(2 of 4) [CW-8625/2021]
b) Any other appropriate relief which this
Hon'ble High Court deems just and proper may kindly
be granted in favour of the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
though the Gram Panchayat in its meeting has passed a
resolution for construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan in
Khasra No.184/2 of village Musalmaano ki Dhani, which is
recorded as Gair Mumkin Abadi in the revenue record,
but the Gram Panchayat is constructing the same in
Khasra No.184 of village Musalmaano ki Dhani, which is
Gair Mumkin Agore.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner and other villagers have moved
representation before the concerned authorities i.e. the
Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer and the
District Collector, Barmer, but the construction of the
Gram Panchayat Bhawan has not been stopped.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
after going through the material available on record, I do
not find any case for interference.
It is settled law that the matter regarding
construction of building of public utility is the domain of
the Government and its functionaries and until and unless
it is demonstrated that there is flagrant violation of any
(3 of 4) [CW-8625/2021]
provision of law/rules in the action of authorities or it
suffer from malafides, no interference is permissible in
such administrative matters while exercising powers of
Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.R. Raghupathy Vs.
State of A.P. reported in (1988) 4 SCC 364 has
observed as under:-
"31. We find it rather difficult to sustain the judgment
of the High Court in some of the cases where it has
interfered with the location of Mandal Headquarters
and quashed the impugned notifications on the
ground that the Government acted in breach of the
guidelines in that one place or the other was more
centrally located or that location at the other place
would promote general public convenience, or that
the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place
with a view to develop the area surrounded by it. The
location of headquarters by the Government by the
issue of the final notification under subsection (5) of
Section 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the
Cabinet Sub-Committee of the proposals submitted by
the Collectors concerned and the objections and
suggestions received from the local authorities like
the Gram Panchayats and the general public. Even
assuming that the Government while accepting the
recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee
directed that the Mandal Headquarters should be at
place `X' rather than place `Y' as recommended by
the Collector concerned in a particular case, the High
Court would not have issued a writ in the nature of
mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were
nothing more than administrative instructions not
having any statutory force, which did not give rise to
any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners".
(4 of 4) [CW-8625/2021]
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this
writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
However, the authorities, to whom the
representations are preferred by the petitioner and other
villagers shall consider and decide the same, if not
decided till date, expeditiously strictly in accordance with
law.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
47-msrathore/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
