Local Community Gram Panachayat ... vs Sub Divisional Officer, Guda ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8066 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5903/2022

1. Local Community Gram Panachayat Aratwav, Tehsil Guda Malani Through 1. Hira Ram S/o Manga Ram, By Caste Jat, Age 32 Years, R/o At Present Ward Panch, Ward No. 5, Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, Dist Barmer.

2. Asu Ram S/o Hema Ram, Aged About 27 Years, By Caste Dewasi, R/o At Present Ward Panch, Ward No. 4, Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, Dist Barmer.

3. Roopa Devi S/o Karna Ram, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Vishnoi, R/o At Present Ward Panch, Ward No. 3, Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, Dist Barmer.

4. Hara Ram S/o Bharta, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Guda Malani, Dist Barmer.

5. Malla Ram S/o Padma Ram, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Guda Malani, Dist Barmer.

6. Rau Ram S/o Roopa Ram, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Guda Malani, Dist Barmer.

7. Har Lal S/o Uma Ram, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Guda Malani, Dist Barmer.

8. Mahiga Ram S/o Sardara Ram, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Guda Malani, Dist Barmer.

9. Mala Ram S/o Hem Ram, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Guda Malani, Dist Barmer.

10. Arjun Ram S/o Harken Ram, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Guda Malani, Dist Barmer.

11. Kalu Ram S/o Kachba Ram, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Guda Malani, Dist Barmer.

12. Ram Lal S/o Dhuda Ram, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Guda Malani, Dist Barmer.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Sub Divisional Officer, Guda Malani, District Barmer.

2. Tehsildar, Tehsil Guda Malani, District Barmer.

3. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Guda Malani, District Barmer.

Respondents.....

(2 of 6) [CW-5903/2022]

4. Hira Ram S/o Harchand Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

5. Kheta Ram S/o Moola Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

6. Vagta Ram S/o Mala Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

7. Babu Lal S/o Choga Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

8. Teja Ram S/o Kumbha Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

9. Manga Ram S/o Bhabhoota Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

10. Sardara Ram S/o Ramji Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

11. Mada Ram S/o Hirkan Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

12. Narsi Ram S/o Prabhu Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

13. Rawta Ram S/o Arjun Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

14. Arjan Ram S/o Hema Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

15. Jiya Ram S/o Lala Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

16. Hanuman Ram S/o Karna Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

17. Achala Ram S/o Navla Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

18. Hukma Ram S/o Dhanna Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

19. Karna Ram S/o Ridmal Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

20. Bhera Ram S/o Choga Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

21. Bhanwar Lal S/o Hara Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

22. Jaikishan S/o Jawnta Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

23. Mobata Ram S/o Kistoor Ram, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Aratwav, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

Proforma Respondents....

                                            (3 of 6)                   [CW-5903/2022]



For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. Mahendra Vishnoi.
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. Pritam Solanki.
                                  Mr. Kunal Bishnoi.


             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                      Order
27/05/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the Resolution dated 1.1.2021 (Annex.P/2) passed by the

Gram Panchayat, Aratwav, order dated 7.1.2021 (Annex.P/4)

passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Guda Malani, order dated

24.3.2021 (Annex.P/9) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority

and order dated 30.3.2022 (Annex.P/11) passed by the Board of

Revenue and seeking a direction to the respondents not to raise

any construction regarding the Panchayat Bhawan and a direction

to the respondents to allot land in Khasra No.500 near

Government Upper Primary School.

The respondent - Gram Panchayat in its Special Meeting

dated 1.1.2021 passed the Resolution for allotment of land in

Khasra No.395 admeasuring 2.05 bigha for construction of Gram

Panchayat Bhawan. Whereafter, an application was made to the

Tehsildar, Tehsil Guda Malani and the SDO by order dated

7.1.2021, allotted the land in question to the Gram panchayat.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners who were apparently

interested in construction of the Gram Panchayat Bhawan in

Khasra No.500, filed appeal before the Revenue Appellate

Authority under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,

1956. The appeal was filed seeking to emphasize that the land

situated in Khasra No.500 was far more suitable for the Panchayat

Bhawan than the land which has been allotted.

                                          (4 of 6)                     [CW-5903/2022]



     The   Revenue     Appellate        Authority        by     its   order   dated

24.3.2021 did not find any illegality in the order impugned before

him and consequently, rejected the appeal.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Board of

the Revenue under Section 76 of the Land Revenue Act again

reiterating the issue of land in Khasra NO.500 being more

appropriate.

The Board of Revenue by its order dated 30.3.2022, did not

find any reason to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by

the SDO and the Revenue Appellate Authority and consequently,

dismissed the second appeal.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that

the action of the respondents in passing the Resolution (Annex.2)

is per se illegal, inasmuch as, the Special Meeting of the Gram

Panchayat could only be called by following procedure under

Section 45(3) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which provisions

have been violated and as the initiation of the meeting itself is per

se illegal, the Resolution passed therein, is also non-est and

consequently the orders passed by the SDO, allotting the land and

the dismissal of appeals by the Revenue Appellate Authority and

the Board of Revenue, also deserve to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that

the petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article

227 of the Constitution of India and cannot be permitted to raise

absolutely new issues, which issues were never raised either

before the Revenue Appellate Authority or the Board of Revenue.

Submissions have been made that the entire attempt on part

of the petitioners all along has been to claim that the land in

Khasra No.500 was more suitable than the allotted land and no

(5 of 6) [CW-5903/2022]

other aspect was emphasized, which submissions have been

declined by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of

Revenue and as such, no case for interference is made out.

It is denied that the provisions of Section 45(3) of the Act

have been violated in any manner.

Submissions have also been made that this Court has

consistently laid down that as to at what place the Panchayat

Bhawan etc. should come up, cannot be made subject-matter of

interference by the Court and on that count also, the petition

deserves dismissal.

Reliance has been placed on Samast Gramvasi, Gram

Panchayat, Deluon Ka Tala v. Rana Ram & Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.13457/2021, decided on 2.2.2022, Villagers of Village

Sundo Ka Bas, Tehsil and Panchayat Samiti Kishangarh Kenwal v.

State of Rajasthan: 2022(1) DNJ (Raj.) 311, Moti Ram v. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9684/2020, decided

on 10.2.2022 and Smt. Shanti v. Jodhpur Development Authority,

Jodhpur & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4241/2022, decided on

1.4.2022.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

A perusal of the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate

Authority and the Board of Revenue, which are subject-matter of

challenge in the present writ petition reveal that the petitioners in

the appeals only and only emphasized the fact about the land

situated in Khasra No.500 being more appropriate than the

allotted land. At no stage, objection was raised pertaining to the

purported illegality of the meeting resulting in passing of the

resolution dated 1.1.2021.

(6 of 6) [CW-5903/2022]

The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

having been invoked in the present writ petition for issuance of

writ of Certiorari, the petitioners possibly cannot raise issues,

which have not been raised before the Courts / Tribunals below

that also for the first time and requiring investigation into the

factual aspects pertaining to the validity of meeting held by the

respondents.

It is besides the fact that the respondents by producing

material in response, have sought to defend the holding of the

meeting and have also asserted that the construction of the

Panchayat Bhawan is already at an advanced stage. Various

judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondents, have

consistently held that, insofar as, the consturction of the

Panchayat Bhawan etc. is concerned, the jurisdiction of the Court

cannot be invoked for the purpose of adjudicating the appropriate

location for its construction etc. and, therefore, the interference by

the Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is not

warranted.

In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is

made out in the present writ petition. The same is, therefore,

dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

Sumit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)