Monday, 18, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Deedwana Bar Association vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1223 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1223 Raj
Judgement Date : 27 January, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Deedwana Bar Association vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 January, 2022
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Madan Gopal Vyas

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 2289/2021

1. Deedwana Bar Association, Deedwana Through Its General Secretary Shiv Bhagwan, Advocate S/o Shri Heera Ram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Baori, Tehsil Deedwana, District Nagaur, At Present Subhash Colony, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

2. Mohd. Ali Sherani S/o Shri Umar Khan Sherani, Aged About 55 Years, President, Deedwana Bar Association, R/ o Village Sherani Abad, Tehsil Deedwana, District Nagaur

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Nagaur.

3. Additional District Collector, Deedwana.

4. Sub Division Officer, Deedwana.

5. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

6. Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Rajesh Punia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit, AAG Mr. Rakesh Arora

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Order

27/01/2022

This public interest petition is filed by Deedwana Bar

Association. The petitioners have challenged an order dated

(2 of 4) [CW-2289/2021]

18.03.2020 passed by the District Collector, Nagaur converting a

portion of land ad-measuring 2.4300 hectares of khasra No.1029

out of total land ad-measuring 14.32 hectares falls in the Gair

Mumkin Pahad and it is ordered to be vested in the Deedwana

Municipal Board on certain terms and conditions specified in the

said order. Principally, the objections of the petitioner to this

order are that the conversion is done without changing the master

plan and the proposed construction of the government building on

the said land is in any case opposed to the provisions made in the

master plan for the land in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land in

question falls in the periphery control belt. As per the provisions

of the sanctioned master plan, there are certain restrictions for

use of land situated in this zone. Ignoring such restrictions and

without modifying or amending the master plan, the order passed

by the District Collector for change of use of the land is wholly

impermissible as provided by the Division Bench judgment of this

Court in the Case of Gulab Kothari, Editor, Rajasthan, Patrika,

Jaipur Vs. State of Rajasthan And Ors., 2017(1) DNJ(Raj.)

147.

The respondents State authorities have filed affidavit and

prayed for vacating the interim relief which was granted on

10.02.2021 directing the respondents to maintain status quo.

This application is filed in terms of Article 226(3) of the

Constitution. In an affidavit filed by respondent No.5 i.e.

Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Deedwana, it is

stated that the order dated 01.02.2017 passed by the Joint

Secretary, sanction was granted for construction of office of S.D.O.

along with Tehsil office for a sum of Rs.351 lacs and the office of

(3 of 4) [CW-2289/2021]

Additional District Collector for a sum of Rs.300 lacs. Pursuant to

this order, the District Collector had transferred a portion of the

land from khasra No.1029 to the Municipal Board, Deedwana.

This was done with the specific purpose of construction of the

Government building. It is stated that pursuant to the order,

possession of the land is also handed over to the Municipal Board.

On 16.10.2020 and 29.10.2020, tenders were invited for

construction of the building and eventually work order was issued

on 11.12.2020 in favour of one M/s. H.R. Contractors for a sum of

Rs.182.67 lacs for construction of Sub-Division office and Tehsil

office and another work order was issued on 11.12.2020 in favour

of M/s Y.K. Goran for a sum of Rs.168.79 lacs for construction of

building of the office of the Additional District Collector. It is

further pointed out that pursuant to such work order the

construction began at the site and by 09.02.2021 a total sum of

Rs.70 lacs had been spent. After the interim stay granted by this

Court, the work has been stopped at the site.

In the master plan for the land falling in the periphery

control belt, it is provided that such areas would be rural areas.

The land use in such areas would be for the purpose of

agriculture, forestry, horticulture, garden etc. and such similar

uses. It is further provided that no permission for undesirable

urban development will be granted in relation to the land falling in

the periphery control belt and uses would be predominantly of

agricultural nature.

The larger question that the land falling in periphery control

belt can be put to any use other than agriculture, forestry,

horticulture, garden and such similar uses and cannot be utilized

even for construction of Government building without amending or

(4 of 4) [CW-2289/2021]

modifying the master plan, needs closure scrutiny. For such

purpose, we are inclined to admit this public interest petition.

However, in the facts of the present case, we are not inclined to

continue the interim order granted earlier. This is for the following

reasons.

As pointed out, at the site what is proposed to be

constructed is essentially the Government building, for which

purpose, sanction has been granted by the Government;

conversion of the land has been made by the District Collector and

the land is handed over to the Municipal Board; contracts have

been invited; tenders have been finalized; work orders have been

issued and substantial work has already been undertaken. At this

stage, to perpetually stay further construction would be

detrimental to the larger public interest also.

To examine the larger question open, we admit the public

interest petition, but vacate the interim relief granted earlier.

Issue notice. Counsel for the respondents waive service of

notice on respondents.

                                   (MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J                                           (AKIL KURESHI),CJ


                                    20-MohitTak/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter