Hardeep Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7237 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3617/2021

Hardeep Singh S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Dhanothi Choti, Tehsil Rajgarh District Churu (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Youth Affairs And Sports Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Principal Secretary Medical And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. District Collector, District Churu (Raj.)

4. Municipal Council, Rajgarh District Churu (Raj.) Through Its Executive Officer.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Sushil Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General
                                through V.C. assisted by
                                Mr. K.S. Lodha
                                Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG assisted by
                                Mr. Rajat Arora

HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Order

16/05/2022

Heard on application filed by the respondent-State for

vacating the interim order passed by this Court.

Learned Advocate General appearing for the State would

argue that in the present case, as the use of the land is being

converted from one public purpose to other public purpose, no

public interest is involved in this petition and only on this ground,

the petition is liable to be dismissed. He would next submit that as

far as original allotment of 14 hectares of land in the year 1978 at

(2 of 7) [CW-3617/2021]

Rajgarh is concerned, at that time, in the peculiar facts and

background as stated in the reply, wherein it was proposed to

raise All India Institute of Medical Sciences, that huge land was

proposed. However later on, AIIMS could not be established and

the donor expressed willingness to surrender his private hospital

with a request to the State Government to run the same.

Therefore, the State acquired the hospital and a Community

Health Center was established, for which there is no requirement

of huge piece of land. Referring to the averments made in the

reply, it has been submitted that as per the standard norms

relating to establishment of Community Health Center, which is

not the District Hospital, smaller piece of land is sufficient for

present and future needs. Total land available for hospital is 2.21

hectares, out of which construction has been raised on 0.52

hectares of land and with all future extension possibilities,

additional piece of land admeasuring 1.69 hectares is still available

and vacant. Out of the aforesaid vacant land, 788.5 sq. meter has

been identified for construction of trauma center. Thus, not only

the hospital and CHC is operational with sufficient land and space

available but for construction of trauma center also sufficient land

is available and in addition to that there is availability of land, in

case any future extension is necessary.

It is next submitted that as far as alteration of use of land is

concerned, it was the State Government which had passed the

order for allotment of 12 hectares of land for construction of

sports stadium vide order dated 21.09.2020 and it was only in

compliance of this order that the Collector has passed the order. It

is not that without jurisdiction and without authority of the State

Government, the Collector on his own has passed the impugned

(3 of 7) [CW-3617/2021]

order dated 13.10.2020 in excess of his powers and jurisdiction

available under the Condition for (Allotment of Unoccupied Govt.

Agricultural Lands for the Construction of Schools, Colleges,

Dispensaries, Dharmshalas & Other Buildings of Public Utility)

1963 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Condition of 1963'). It

is brought to the notice of the Court that the order of the Collector

is in compliance of the order of the State Government, and also

the same has been clearly mentioned in the order. Therefore,

there is no illegality in the order passed.

Lastly, it is submitted that the order passed by the District

Collector itself was subject to the condition of obtaining NOC. The

land use has been diverted vide order dated 28.02.2022, which is

not under challenge in the present petition. In support of his

submissions, learned Advocate General placed reliance upon the

decisions in the cases of State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs.

Pakur Jagran Manch and Ors. [(2011) 2 SCC 591],

Rajasthan Polo Club Vs. State of Rajasthan and 7 Ors. [WLC

Raj. 2002 (1)], Janhit Manch and Anr. Vs. State of

Maharashtra and Ors. [(2019) 2 SCC 505].

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the interim order was passed by this Court by taking

into consideration that an attempt is being made to divert the land

reserved for hospital. He would argue that once the land has

already been set apart by the Collector for the purpose of hospital,

it was not permissible to allot the land as unoccupied Government

agricultural land for any other purpose under the Condition of

1963 because the land once set apart the same could not be

allotted as unoccupied Government agricultural land for other

purpose without cancelling/setting aside the order of setting apart.

(4 of 7) [CW-3617/2021]

He would next submit that the land could not be allotted by the

Collector for the purpose of construction of sports stadium

because Clause 2 of the Conditions of 1963 does not include

sports as one of the activities for allotment of land. Further

submission is that in any case, allotment beyond the area

specified therein, was not at all permissible. Learned counsel for

the petitioner would further argue that even if it is held that the

order was passed by the State Government in exercise of the

powers under Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,

1956, the same is against the public interest because sports

activities could not be given precedence over the health facilities

and if the land reserved for hospital is diverted, it may adversely

affect extension of health facilities in future, as the land would be

no longer available.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also highlighted that the

conversion of the land use from hospital to sports activities is only

subsequent to the passing of the order by the State Government

and the Collector, therefore, on the basis of subsequent order of

land conversion, allotment could not be justified in law.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon

perusal of the records and documents, we find that the challenge

to allotment has been made primarily on two grounds.

Firstly, the challenge is based on the allegation that it is

against public interest. In the present case, it is not that the

Government land is being allotted in the hands of any private

person and that too in violation of law. In the case of Rajasthan

Polo Club (supra), taking into consideration that the change of the

land was for one public purpose to other public purpose, it was

said that the Court cannot go into the competitive utility of the

(5 of 7) [CW-3617/2021]

public purpose and once the Court is satisfied that the acquisition

is for public purpose, no fault can be found with the proceedings

on the ground that the land has already been used for some

beneficial purpose. Referring to the earlier judgment, it has also

been stated that there is no principle of law by which a valid

compulsory acquisition stands voided because the authority

diverted it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the

provisions relating to diversion. In sum and substance, diversion

of land resulting in change from one public purpose to other public

purpose by itself would not be an issue of public interest and it is

for the authorities to decide where the land is required.

Other ground with regard to diversion of land reserved for

hospital to that for construction of sports stadium is concerned,

we find that the background in which the huge chunk of 14

hectares of land was reserved for hospital purpose was that a

public spirited person entered into an agreement with the State

Government claiming that for facilitating successful

implementation of health care delivery it would be undertaken by

AIIMS, New Delhi, agreed to construct and donate a hospital in

Churu town which was to be a 23 bedded hospital. In the

agreement, it was mentioned that AIIMS, New Delhi had

undertaken to run the hospital pursuant to the agreement dated

13.12.1977. The public spirited person constructed a hospital

covering the land of 0.52 hectares. However, the hospital did not

meet the requirements of AIIMS. AIIMS did not take over and run

the hospital as a result of which, the building remained without

use for long time and ultimately the public spirited person

approached the Government for running the hospital. It was in

this background that the already constructed hospital was

(6 of 7) [CW-3617/2021]

converted into Community Health Center after it was taken over

by the Government.

We further find that out of total land, 0.52 hectares was used

for construction of hospital building of Community Health Center

which is comparatively a smaller health unit and is not comparable

to District Hospital or hospital of State level. The total land

covered for hospital building and future extension for allied

activities is 2.21 hectares, out of which, even now, 1.69 hectares

of land is available, a part of which can very well be used for

construction of trauma center. There is nothing in the petition to

show that even for future purposes, there will be requirement of

larger chunk of land. In fact even for construction of Community

Health Center, availability of 2.21 hectares of land is sufficient.

Remaining 12 hectares of land has been stated to be lying idle out

without any use. In this background, the decision of the

Government to allow construction of sports stadium by converting

use of the barren land of 12 hectare, does not seem to be against

public purpose.

As far as challenge to the correctness and validity of order of

the Collector dated 13.10.2020 is concerned, we find that it is not

a case where the Collector, on his own, exceeding his powers

conferred under the relevant rules, has passed the order in

respect of certain land which could not be said to be unoccupied

Government agricultural land beyond the limits prescribed under

the conditions and for the purposes other than those stated in the

statutory conditions. It is the State Government which has passed

the order on 21.09.2020 allotting 12 hectares of land for

construction of sports stadium at Rajgarh. This power is traceable

to provisions contained in Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land

(7 of 7) [CW-3617/2021]

Revenue Act, 1956. This provision has overriding affect. Therefore,

on prima facie consideration, the power of the State Government

under Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act is not

circumscribed by the rules and the statutory conditions referred

above. We also find that the order of the Collector was subject to

prior NOC from various departments and later on, the land use

has also been converted by the State Government in exercise of

its powers under the law, which is not under challenge.

In view of above prima facie consideration of the materials

on record, we are not inclined to continue the interim order which

was earlier passed by this Court. The application for vacating the

interim order is allowed and the interim order passed by this Court

is vacated.

As the pleadings are complete, list this matter for final

hearing in the month of August, 2022.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACJ

31-jayesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)