Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pintu Kumar Katara vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 July, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9500/2021
Pintu Kumar Katara S/o Shri Kavla Katara, Aged About 34 Years,
By Caste Katara, Resident Of Village Dhanku, Tehsil Anandpuri,
District Banswara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Banswara.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Anandpuri, District Banswara.
4. Gram Panchayat Dhanku, Panchayat Samiti, Tehsil
Anandpuri, District Banswara, Through Its Sarpanch.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
28/07/2021
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
prayer for setting aside the order dated 10.07.2020 passed by the
respondent No.4 - Gram Panchayat, Dhanku, whereby it has
passed the resolution for accepting a particular land for the
purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan. The
petitioner has also challenged the order dated 28.07.2020 passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Anandpuri, District Banswara,
whereby 0.32 hectare of land some of the khasras of Village
Dhanku has been allotted for the purpose of construction of Gram
Panchayat Bhawan. The petitioner has also challenged the order
dated 16.10.2020 passed by the District Collector, Banswara,
whereby financial sanction has been granted for construction of
Gram Panchayat Bhawan.
(2 of 3) [CW-9500/2021]
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Anandpuri has allotted the land measuring
0.32 hectare of various khasras of Village Dhanku on the basis of
the resolution of Gram Panchayat, Dhanku dated 10.07.2020,
however, the said resolution has not been passed by the Gram
Panchayat and the signatures thereon of the Members of the Gram
Panchayat, Dhanku are forged.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
the District Collector, Banswara has also illegally issued financial
sanction for the purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat
Bhawan. It is also submitted that though another Government
land, which is most suitable for the purpose of construction of
Gram Panchayat Bhawan, is available in the Village Dhanku, but
the respondents have not considered this aspect of the matter and
have illegally allotted the land for the purpose of construction of
Gram Panchayat, Dhanku vide order dated 28.7.2020.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through
the material available on record, wherein the petitioner has
enclosed photographs of the construction work of the Gram
Panchayat Bhawan.
From perusal of the photographs, it can be gathered that the
said construction work has been completed up to the plinth level
and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has
approached this Court after a delay of around one year, I do not
find any case for interference in this writ petition.
It is well 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
(3 of 3) [CW-9500/2021]
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 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
38-Arun/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
