Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The Gram Panchayat Sohangarh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 23 July, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9230/2021
The Gram Panchayat Sohangarh, Panchayat Samiti Devgarh,
Dist. Rajsamand Through Its Sarpanch Namely Mamta Devi W/o
Ramlal, Age 26 Yrs., B/c Khatik, R/o Village Arjungarh, Tehsil
Devgarh, Dist. Rajsamand (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary,
Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural
Development And Panchayat Raj, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary (Administration) Cum Commissioner,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayat Raj,
Rajasthan Jaipur.
4. The Joint Secretary Administration (Legal), Department
Of Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, Rajasthan
Jaipur.
5. The Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Rajsamand.
7. The District Collector, Rajsamand.
8. The Additional District Collector Cum Nodal Officer,
Panchayat Reconstitution, Rajsamand.
9. The Sub Divisional Officer, Devgarh, Dist. Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Devasee
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
23/07/2021
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner - Gram Panchayat
through its Sarpanch challenging the validity of the order dated
26.06.2021 (Annexure-15) passed by the District Collector,
(2 of 5) [CW-9230/2021]
Rajsamand, whereby the District Collector, Rajsamand has
directed the Sub Divisional Officer, Deogarh to allot land for the
purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan of Gram
Panchayat, Sohangarh at Araji No.369 of Village Sirodhaniya,
District Rajsamand instead of Araji No.466 of Village Sirola. It is
further prayed that the respondents may be directed to construct
the Gram Panchayat Bhawan in Gram Panchayat, Sohangarh at
Khasra No.466 of Village Sirola.
As per the averments made in this writ petition, the Sub
Divisional Officer, Deogarh, District Rajsmand vide Order dated
11.08.2020 (Annexure-6) allotted the land of Khasra No. 466 of
Village Sirola for the purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat
Bhawan of Gram Panchayat Sohangarh. It is claimed by the
petitioner that the said land was allotted by the Sub Divisional
Officer, Devgarh as per the resolution of Gram Sabha of Gram
Panchayat, Sohangarh. It is also claimed that the land of Araji No.
466 of Village Sirola is most suitable land for the purpose of
construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan of Gram Panchayat
Sohangarh.
It appears that some complaints were filed by some of the
Ward Panchas and other villagers objecting the allotment of land
of Araji No. 466 of Gram Panchayat of Village Sirola for the
purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan of Gram
Panchayat Sohangarh and taking cognizance of said complaints,
the District Collector, Rajsamand had invited objections from
interested persons and thereafter provided opportunity of hearing
to all the concerned persons. The District Collector after providing
opportunity of hearing to all the concerned including Sarpanch of
(3 of 5) [CW-9230/2021]
the petitioner Gram Panchayat, has passed the impugned order
dated 26.06.2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
District Collector has grossly erred in passing the impugned order
dated 26.06.2021. It is further submitted the land of Araji No. 466
of Village, Sirola is the most suitable land for the construction of
Gram Panchayat Bhawan of Gram Panchayat, Sohangarh. It is also
submitted that the persons, who objected for the allotment of the
land of Araji No. 466 of Gram Panchayat, Sirola were signatory to
the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat,
Sohangarh recommending allotment of the land of Araji No. 466 of
Village Sirola. It is argued that once those persons have agreed
for the allotment of the land at Village Sirola, then at a later
stage, they have no locus to challenge the allotment on any of the
grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted
that administrative, technical and financial sanction for the
purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan of Gram
Panchayat Sohangarh has already been issued for the land of Araji
No. 466 of Village Sirola, then, at this stage, the action of the
District Collector, Rajsamand for cancelling the allotment of the
land of Araji No. 466 of Village Sirola is absolutely illegal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that
the impugned order may be set aside and the respondents be
directed to construct the Panchanyat Bhawan at Araji No. 466 of
Village Sirola.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
material available on record.
The District Collector after receiving complaints/ objections
from the villagers including some ward panchas had convened a
(4 of 5) [CW-9230/2021]
meeting to take a decision on the said objections. In the said
meeting, the petitioner-Sarpanch took part and the District
Collector after taking note of the fact that the land of Gram
Panchayat, Village Sirola allotted for the purpose of construction of
Gram Panchayat Bhawan of Gram Panchayat, Sohangarh is far
from the headquarters and the land of Village Sirodhaniya is near
to the Panchayat Headquarters and after obtaining report from the
Sub Divisional Officer as well as Vikas Adhikari and Patwari of the
area concerned has decided that the land of Araji No. 369 of
Village Sirodhaniya is the most suitable for the purpose of
construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan of Gram Panchayat,
Sohangarh.
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 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
(5 of 5) [CW-9230/2021]
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.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
49-mohit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
