Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Aam Janta, Gram Panchayat, ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 23 September, 2022

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Rekha Borana

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9998/2022

Aam Janta, Gram Panchayat, Mundasar, Panchayat Samiti, Nagaur District Nagaur through-

(1) Kumbha Ram S/o Shri Simratha Ram, aged 45 years, resident of Village Pitholai, Panchayat Samiti, Nagaur District Nagaur.

(2) Shivnath Ram S/o Shri Rugha Ram, aged 78 years, residents of Village Mundasar, Panchayat Samiti, Nagaur District Nagaur.

(3) Sukha Ram S/o Shri Kishna Ram, aged 57 years, residents of Village Mundasar, Panchayat Samiti, Nagaur District Nagaur.

(4) Gomand Ram S/o Shri Teja Ram, aged 64 years, residents of Village Mundasar, Panchayat Samiti, Nagaur District Nagaur.

----Petitioners

Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Nagaur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.

4. Sub Division Officer, Nagaur.

5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Nagaur.

6. Gram Panchayat, Mundasar Through Its Secretary Cum Village Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Nagaur, District Nagaur.

                                                                  ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. G.R. Punia, Senior Advocate
                                 assisted by Mr. Rajesh Punia
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Moti Singh





                                         (2 of 6)               [CW-9998/2022]

HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Judgment

23/09/2022

The present (Public Interest Litigation) petition has been filed

against the order dated 02.07.2022 (Annexure-24) whereby the

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur has proceeded on to

grant financial sanction for construction of new Gram Panchayat

Bhawan at Mundasar.

The case of the petitioners is that in the year 2020, by virtue

of de-limitation, the Gram Panchayat Satehran was decided to be

bifurcated into two and the new Gram Panchayat at Mundasar was

decided to be created. For the purpose, new Gram Panchayat

Bhawan at Mundasar was also necessitated for which one Hari

Ram surrendered 7 bighas and 10 biswa of land situated in Khasra

No.207 in favour of the State. Before any decision regarding

construction of Panchayat Bhawan on the said land could be

finalized, yet other person Maan Singh surrendered/gifted 7

bighas and 10 biswa of land comprising Khasra Nos.461/289 and

462/286 for the same purpose. A decision was then taken by the

Gram Panchayat to construct the Panchayat Bhawan on the land

gifted by Maan Singh and the financial sanction qua the same was

also granted by the Zila Parishad for the purpose.

Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

decision to construct the Panchayat Bhawan on the land situated

in Khasra Nos.461/289 and 462/286 and the financial sanction

thereupon are totally bad in the eyes of law as the said land

(3 of 6) [CW-9998/2022]

cannot be said to be appropriate by any means for construction of

Panchayat Bhawan. Learned Sr. counsel submitted that the land is

10 kms away from the abadi of dhanies of Village Shivpura and

Fatehsar and is just adjacent to the residential dhanies of Up-

Sarpanch, who is the wife of the donor Maan Singh. Learned Sr.

counsel further submitted that the aforementioned decision has

been taken only at the instance of Up-Sarpanch for his personal

motive whereas the geographical position of the land in Khasra

No.207 is comparatively better and also near to the Government

Senior Secondary School, Mundasar and famous Sand Bhomiyaji

Ka Than. Learned counsel also submitted that the gift of the land

in question is also not in accordance with law and therefore also

the decision to construct any government building on the same

cannot be said to be valid.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

no.6-Gram Panchayat, Mundasar submitted that the present Public

Interest Litigation at the instance of so called Aam Janta of Village

Mundasar is nothing more than a politically motivated litigation.

Learned counsel submitted that firstly, the decision to construct

the Gram Panchayat Bhawan at a particular place is to be of Gram

Panchayat concerned only and in the present matter, the same has

been made by the Gram Panchayat only. He further submitted that

the financial sanction as granted is an order passed by the Zila

Parishad which is appealable under Section 97A of the Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and therefore, no petition in the form of

PIL can be entertained.

It has further been submitted that the proposal for

construction of the Panchayat Bhawan on the land of Khasra

(4 of 6) [CW-9998/2022]

Nos.461/289 and 462/286 has been approved by the State

Government vide order dated 12.02.2021 and therefore, it cannot

be said to be passed in absence of jurisdiction. It has been

brought on record that a civil suit by the family members of the

present petitioners had also been filed before the competent civil

court which is pending adjudication till date. As no interim order

was passed in the civil suit, the present PIL has been filed with the

intention to somehow hinder the construction of Gram Panchayat

Bhawan.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

A perusal of the record makes it clear that the present one is

a dispute between two groups of villagers. As held by a Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in Bargat Khan & Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.14391/2021

(decided on 25.10.2021), where should the Panchayat Bhawan be

located, cannot be a subject matter of consideration by the High

Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In Baragat Khan's case

(supra), the Co-ordinate Bench observed as under :

"Essentially, where should the Panchayat Bhawan be located, cannot be a subject matter of consideration by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 pertains to the power of Government to allot land for purposes other than agricultural as well as on special terms. This section provides that notwithstanding anything hereinforce contained, the State Government shall have power to allot land for the purposes of an industry or for any purpose of public utility on such conditions as it deems fit. Essentially, this retains the power of the Government to divest the Government land for the purpose of industry or any other purpose of public utility. It is under this section that the Conditions of 1963 have been laid down. These conditions are in the nature of

(5 of 6) [CW-9998/2022]

guidelines for exercising the power divesting its lands for the aforementioned purposes. Substantial compliance of these provisions, therefore, would be sufficient to pass the test of legality. The order itself provides for compensating the Gram Panchayat with commensurate area of gochar land to the extent the same is used for other purposes. This order, therefore, cannot be seen as one changing the use of the Gochar land into some other purpose."

Further in Sagram Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan; D.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.6523/2021 (decided on 20.10.2021P, a Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court held that the subject matter of

location of Gram Panchayat Bhawan cannot be a matter of

consideration by the writ Court and that too in a public interest

litigation unless it is ex-facie arbitrary, illegal, malafide or against

some rules of law.

In J.R. Raghupathy and Others Vs. State of A.P. and

Others : 1988 (4) SCC 364, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as

under :

"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 sub-section (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

(6 of 6) [CW-9998/2022]

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."

It is clear on record that firstly, the Panchayat Bhawan has

already been constructed and a large amount of public money has

already been spent on the same; secondly, the construction on the

land in Khasra No.461/289 and 462/286 has been made in

accordance with law and after approval by the State Government.

Therefore, the same cannot be termed to be illegal, arbitrary or

malafide on any ground. The decision as to which place would be

more suitable for any Government building to be constructed, is

the decision specifically within the domain of the Gram Panchayat

concerned. The present Panchayat Bhawan has been constructed

in terms of the proposal of Gram Panchayat only therefore, this

Court in writ jurisdiction is not inclined to entertain any personal

interest litigation in the form of PIL. The said decision is also

necessitated in view of the fact that a civil suit pertaining to the

same dispute has already been preferred and the same is pending

adjudication till date.