Hari Vallabh Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10880 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hari Vallabh Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 2 April, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:17154-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No. 6760/2025

Hari Vallabh Sharma son of Bhanwar Lal Sharma, aged about 74
years, resident of Jetha Pada, Jaisalmer (Raj)-345 001.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Local Self
         Government Department, Rajasthan having its office at
         Secretariat Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302 001.
2.       District Collector Jaisalmer,                   having its office at
         Collectorate Premises, Tehsil                   and District Jaisalmer
         (Rajasthan)-345 001.
3.       Municipal Council Jaisalmer, through its Commissioner
         having its office at Bera Road, Tehsil And District
         Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)-345 001.
4.       Kavi Tej Lok Kala Vikas Samiti Jaisalmer, through its
         authorized signatory/member/secretary Hemant Kumar
         Sharma son of Nand Kishor Sharma, resident of near
         Mahaveer Bhawan, Malpani Pada, Jaisalmer, Tehsil and
         District Jaisalmer (Raj) .
5.       Maru Sanskrit Kendra Sangrahalaya, through its member
         Hemant Kumar Sharma son of Late Shri Nand Kishor
         Sharma, a unit of Kavi Tej Lok Kala Vikas Samiti having
         its office at Gadisar Choraha Jaisalmer, Tehsil and District
         Jaisalmer (Raj).
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Manas Ranchhor Khatri, Advocate
For Respondent(s)            :



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

02/04/2025 Per, Sandeep Shah, J :

This petition for writ petition labeled as Public Interest

Litigation has been filed with the following prayer:-

[2025:RJ-JD:17154-DB] (2 of 8) [CW-6760/2025]

"It is therefore, humbly prayed on behalf of petitioner that this Writ Petition for Public Interest Litigation may kindly be allowed and issue the following direction:-

a) By appropriate writ, order, direction, the allotment letter dated 18.04.1994 (Annexure1) issued by the Municipal Council Jaisalmer in favour of the Respondent No. 4 may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside and the permission of change of land use granted by the Municipal Council, Jaisalmer in favour of the Respondent No. 4 may kindly be revoked and the lease deed executed (if any) in favour of the respondent be summoned before this Hon'ble Court and the same may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.

b) By appropriate writ, order, direction, the map produced and uploaded on the website of www.lsg.urban.rajasthan.gov.in as of Jaisalmer City showing the map its Master Development Plan of the land marked as Museum situated opposite to the Gadisar Lake in the Tagore Park Area may kindly be quashed and set aside and to the said extent, the alteration, modification and deviation of the Master Development Plan of Jaisalmer City for the year 2011 to 2035 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

c) By appropriate writ, order, direction, the illegal construction raised upon the Tagore Park Area by the Respondent No. 4 and the third party occupying the said land as encroachers or conferred with lease hold rights or free hold lease rights without authority of law or contrary to the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 and without jurisdiction by the Municipal Council Jaisalmer be also declared illegal and be quashed and set aside and the illegal constructions be demolished and the encroachment be removed and the original position of the Tagore Park Area be restored as its existed.

d) By appropriate writ, order, direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to produce the copy of the entire record of the Tagore Park Area sanctioned and existed and reserved with its measurement and the letter of document issued for its reservation as green belt/green zone or public park and the entire land may kindly be demarcated and the illegal constructions raised therein be demolished and the encroachment be removed and the status of the public park be restored and the same may be developed as a public park by the respondents.

(e) By appropriate writ, order, direction, the respondents may kindly be restrained to use the land for commercial purpose and

[2025:RJ-JD:17154-DB] (3 of 8) [CW-6760/2025]

all kinds of commercial activities conducted within the Tagore Park Area may kindly be discontinued.

f) That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, by which the Petitioner may get full justice may also be allowed."

2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the petition and as

argued by the counsel for the petitioner are that the piece and

parcel of land situated at Tagore Park was allotted by the then

Municipal Board to the respondent no.4 on 18 th April 1994,

ad-measuring 50X100 i.e. total 5000 Sq. Ft. at 50% concessional

rate. The rate for allotment was Rs. 56.25 per Sq. Ft. The

allotment in question was made as per the Rajasthan

Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter

referred as the "Rules of 1974"). As per Rule 18(1) of the Rules of

1974, the land was allotted on lease for 99 years. It is the case of

the petitioner that the entire payment was not made by the

private respondent to the municipal Board within the prescribed

period of time. It is further case of the petitioner that the land

could not be allotted under Rule 18(1) of the Rules of 1974, until

and unless the allotted land falls within the four corners of the

allotment for the public and charitable institutions as provided

under Sub-rule 2 of the Rules of 1974. The relevant provisions of

Rule 18(1) of the Rules of 1974 read as under:

"(2)[Provided further that the Board of Jaipur Municipal Corporation may with prior approval of the State Government and the Board of all other Municipalities/Councils/Corporations may on recommendation of a Committee concerned, Divisional Commissioner and the Chair-person of the Board, allot the land upto an area not exceeding 1000 (one thousand) Sq. yards, free of cost, to the public and charitable institutions for the following purposes:

(i) to establish de-addiction centres (by Medical Institutions),

(ii) to establish old age home,

[2025:RJ-JD:17154-DB] (4 of 8) [CW-6760/2025]

(iii) to establish rest houses for pensioners,

(iv) to establish night shelter homes or ren basera,

(v) to establish training centres for deaf and dumb and dis- abled persons to make them self-dependent.

(vi) to establish and maintain public water huts, urinals and lavatories,

(vii) to establish press club, library or reading room.]"

3. The petitioner has further stated that the additional land was

also to be allotted to the private respondent no.4. However, the

details about the same as to whether the additional allotment was

made or not have not been provided or pleaded in the petition. It

is further case of the petitioner that the land could not be allotted

as it was part of the public park and also contrary to the master

plan of the city of Jaisalmer. The petitioner himself has placed on

record the master plan, as also, in para 4.34 of the pleading he

has specifically stated that in the Master Development Plan of

Jaisalmer City for the year 2011 to 2035 the land in question has

been marked as Museum situated opposite to the Gadisar Lake in

Tagore Park. The petitioner has thus also challenged the master

plan.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon

Rule 18 of the Rules of 1974 and stated that the allotment could

not have been made to the respondent no.4 as the respondent

no.4 did not establish de-addiction centre, old age home or rest

house etc.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that

various representations have been filed, however, no action has

been taken upon the same and that the premises is being used for

the museum and for other purposes also.

6. Heard.

[2025:RJ-JD:17154-DB] (5 of 8) [CW-6760/2025]

7. We have perused the materials available on record.

Admittedly as per the note sheets placed on record by the

petitioner himself, the allotment was done way back on 18 th April

1994 and that too at a concessional rate of 50% of the reserve

rate. The order-sheets placed on record by the petitioner

(Annexure-11 of the writ petition) itself reveals that the entire

procedure was followed and thereafter allotment was done as per

per Rule 18(1) of the Rules of 1974. Not only this, the petitioner

has not placed on record any document nor pleaded anything

which shows as to why after laying in slumber for all these years,

the writ petition has been filed after 30 years of the allotment in

question.

8. Furthermore, the petitioner has not placed on record a single

document to show that the area in question was earmarked as a

park. On the contrary, he himself challenged the master plan and

has come with the specific averment that the area in question has

been shown as a park in the master plan. Furthermore, the map

placed on record along with Annexure-3 reveal that there are

other areas also viz., music school and tourist reception centre

etc. adjacent to the area. Thus, the averment of the petitioner

that the area in question was a public park has no substance

whatsoever.

9. That apart, the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court

seeking a writ in nature of mandamus. However, no representation

whatsoever has been placed on record to show that he pursued

the matter before the concerned authorities. Needless to say that

the law in this regard is no longer res-integra that the writ of

mandamus cannot be entertained until and unless it is preceded

[2025:RJ-JD:17154-DB] (6 of 8) [CW-6760/2025]

by a representation to the authorities raising the grievance tried to

be raised by the petitioner.

10. In "Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment

Corporation v. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited"

reported in 2013(5) SCC 470 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

in paragraph no.22 as under:

"In order to maintain the writ of mandamus, the first and foremost requirement is that the petition must not be frivolous, and must be filed in good faith. Additionally, the applicant must make a demand which is clear, plain and unambiguous. It must be made to an officer having the requisite authority to perform the act demanded. Furthermore, the authority against whom mandamus is issued, should have rejected the demand earlier. Therefore, a demand and its subsequent refusal, either by words, or by conduct, are necessary to satisfy the court that the opposite party is determined to ignore the demand of the applicant with respect to the enforcement of his legal right."

11. Even so, the petitioner himself has placed on record a

document vide Annexure-19 which reveals that the petitioner and

the respondent are entangled in a legal dispute with regard to

eviction of some other parcel of land. This coupled with the delay

in filing of the petition and there being no averment as to how the

petitioner is aggrieved against the allotment so made clearly show

that it is not a bonafide public interest litigation but is a personal

interest litigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case

of "State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors." reported

in 2010(3)SCC 402 has laid as under:

"143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we

[2025:RJ-JD:17154-DB] (7 of 8) [CW-6760/2025]

have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non- monetary directions by the courts.

181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this court and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:-

(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.

(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter. (3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L. (4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.

(5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.

(7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury.

The court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations."

[2025:RJ-JD:17154-DB] (8 of 8) [CW-6760/2025]

12. In view of the discussions made above, this petition seeking

issuance of a writ lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

13. No order as to costs.

                                   (SANDEEP SHAH),J                           (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J
                                    172-mohit/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)