Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Virmaram vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 July, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8962/2021
Virmaram S/o Shri Modaram, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Jat,
R/o Mudhon Ka Tala, Tehsil And District Barmer (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Barmer (Raj.).
3. Additional District Program Co-Ordinator And Chief
Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer (Raj.).
4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Barmer,
District Barmer (Raj.).
5. Gram Panchayat Mudhon Ka Tala, District Barmer,
Through Its Sarpanch.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.C. Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
19/07/2021
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
1. The financial sanction order dated
01.02.2021 for construction of Panchayat Bhawan
(Annex.6) may kindly be declared illegal to and the
same may kindly be quashed.
2. By an appropriate Writ, order or direction the
respondents may kindly be directed to construct the
(2 of 4) [CW-8962/2021]
proposed Panchayat Bhawan at the land which has
been surrendered by the petitioner for the purpose at
Khasra No.1193/1035 of Gram Panchayat Mudhon Ka
Tala, Barmer.
3. 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
the petitioner has surrendered 2.5 bigha of land with the
State Government on 4.9.2020 for the purpose of
construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan on the said land.
It is further submitted that the said land is suitable for
the purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan
as it is situated in the mid of the village and several other
government buildings are also situated there.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the present
Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, for personal reasons,
has illegally passed a resolution in the Gram Sabha of
Gram Panchayat Mudhon Ka Tala on 15.10.2020 for
construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan at Khasra
No.1194/1054. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
argued that the said land is not appropriate for the
purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan as
the same is situated at a distant place, but the
respondent-authorities without taking into consideration
this aspect of the matter, has sanctioned amount for the
(3 of 4) [CW-8962/2021]
purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat Bahwan at
Khasra No.1194/1054 vide impugned order dated
1.2.2021.
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
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
(4 of 4) [CW-8962/2021]
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".
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
49 - ms rathore
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
