Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rewat Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 October, 2023

Bench: Augustine George Masih, Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:35385-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 695/2023

1. Rewat Ram S/o Rupa Ram Mali, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Village Sindhiyo Ki Dhani, Tehsil Tinwari, District Jodhpur. Presently Working As Up Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sindhiyo Ki Dhani, Panchayat Samiti Tinwari, District Jodhpur.

2. Dhanna Ram S/o Bhera Ram Jat, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Ramnagar, Tehsil Tinwari, District Jodhpur. Presently Working As Elected Pancha Of Ward No. 5 Gram Panchayat Sindhiyo Ki Dhani, Panchayat Samiti Tinwari, District Jodhpur.

3. Geeta W/o Bhera Ram Devasi, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Ramnagar, Tehsil Tinwari, District Jodhpur. Presently Working As Elected Pancha Of Ward No. 7 Gram Panchayat Sindhiyo Ki Dhani, Panchayat Samiti Tinwari, District Jodhpur.

4. Sangeeta W/o Budha Ram Vishnoi, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Ramnagar, Tehsil Tinwari, District Jodhpur. Presently Working As Elected Pancha Of Ward No. 6 Gram Panchayat Sindhiyo Ki Dhani, Panchayat Samiti Tinwari, District Jodhpur.

----Appellants Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Rural Department And Panchayati Raj.

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jodhpur.

3. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Tinwari, District Jodhpur.

4. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Sindhiyo Ki Dhani, Tinwari, District Jodhpur.

                                                                     ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. Moti Singh
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Sajjan Singh with
                                   Mr. Vikram Singh

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

[2023:RJ-JD:35385-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-695/2023]

Judgment

16/10/2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

11.08.2023 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ

petition preferred by the appellants-petitioners was dismissed.

3. Briefly, the facts noted in the present appeal are that the

appellants are the Elected Members of the Gram Sabha/ Gram

Panchayat, Sindhiyon ki Dhani, Tehsil Tinwari, district Jodhpur. A

proposal dated 11.08.2020 was sent by the Tehsildar, Panchayat

Samiti, Tinwari and to this effect a recommendation was also

made by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Tinwari on

15.12.2020 with regard to construction of Panchayat Bhawan in

Khasra No.336/5, Panchayat Samiti, Tinwari. Opposing such

proposal and recommendation for construction of the Panchayat

Bhawan at Khasra No.336/5, the appellants pray that the earlier

proposal for construction of Panchayat Bhawan over the land

bearing Khasra Nos. 347 and 401, Sindhiyon ki Dhani, Tehsil

Tinwari should have been implemented on the ground that the

location of Panchayat Bhawan in Khasra Nos.347 and 401 is more

conducive and beneficial for the larger interests of the villagers.

The construction of Panchayat Bhawan has already been

undertaken and completed in Khasra No.336/5.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

methodology adopted by the State Government bypassing the Will

of the Elected Members is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

[2023:RJ-JD:35385-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-695/2023]

5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted

that the welfare activities of construction etc. in the Gram

Panchayat are required to be undertaken in pursuance of the

proposal sent by the Elected Members and any action de hors such

proposal, will be violative of the provisions of the Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Learned counsel for the appellants

relying upon Section 50 read with First Schedule of the Act of

1994 submits that the construction of the Panchayat Bhawan

should have been undertaken on the Khasra Nos. 347 and 401 in

consonance with the proposal of the Gram Panchayat.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the

learned Single Judge has not considered the matter in its correct

perspective and therefore, has wrongly rejected the writ petition

preferred by the appellants/petitioners.

7. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and

have gone through the relevant record and provisions relied upon

by the learned counsel for the appellants.

8. It is true that normally the proposals and recommendations

sent by the Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat for construction of

public utility building should be favorably considered by State

Government while giving the sanctions, permission and funds, at

the same time the State Government had to consider the Larger

Public Interest of the inhabitants of the area in question.

Therefore, it cannot be held that every proposal sent by Gram

Sabha or Gram Panchayat should be mandatorily agreed by the

State Government. In the present case, the competent authorities

of the respondents have duly examined the matter as well as the

[2023:RJ-JD:35385-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-695/2023]

proposals received from the concerned Gram Panchayat and after

due diligence, a decision has been taken for construction of Gram

Panchayat Bhawan at Khasra No.336/5 Sindhiyon ki Dhani, Tehsil

Tinwari, in the larger public interest.

9. In the present case, we are in complete agreement with the

finding recorded by learned Single Judge which reads as under :-

"31.This Court observes that in the present case, the"respondents had conducted an inquiry in respect to the representation submitted by the petitioner and it was found that land having Khasra Nos.336/5 is most suited in comparison to Khasra Nos.347 and 401 proposed by the petitioners for construction of the Gram Panchayat Bhawan as the adjoining Khasra Nos.336/1 has a PHED Well, Khasra No.336/2 is in the name of Gram Panchayat and has an Aanganwadi Kendra, Khasra No.336/3, is having a Public Health Care Centre and an ANM School and Khasra No.336/4 has a Primary School which is running. Thus, the respondents have decided the location of construction of the Gram Panchayat Bhawan at Khasra No.336/5 while taking into consideration the ground realities particularly when the Gram Panchayat Bhawan is being constructed for catering the needs of the villagers.

32. This Court further observes that in the present case, the construction of the Gram Panchayat Bhawan on the chunk of land, is almost complete and a huge amount has already been invested on the construction by the Government and thus, the construction already done, cannot be demolished or allowed to go in waste in any manner.

33. This Court is not inclined to grant indulgence to the petitioners in the instant case for the reason that the construction of the Gram Panchayat Bhawan is purely an administrative matter which is in domain of the Government and its functionaries. The petitioner has failed to show from the record the violation of law, malafide and arbitrariness in the administrative decision taken by the respondents and thus, this Court finds that no interference is permissible in the administrative matters while exercising powers of

[2023:RJ-JD:35385-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-695/2023]

judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

10. We are of the view that if it is sufficiently brought on record

that by construction of the Gram Panchayat Bhawan at Khasra

No.336/5, major Chunk of the Villagers are going to be benefitted

and the decision to construct Gram Panchayat Bhawan at Khasra

No.336/5 is not based on any irrelevant consideration, then such

decision is not required to be interfered with.

11. A bare perusal of the provision relied upon by the learned

counsel for the appellants clearly goes to show that it no where

prescribes or mandates that the proposal sent by the Gram

Panchayat is necessarily to be adhered or it bounds the State

Government to construct a particular facility as per the proposal

and recommendations of the Gram Panchayat and not otherwise.