Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 November, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2639/2025
Shubham S/o Balwan Poonia, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village
Malkhera, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical And
Health (Group-Ii) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Hanumangarh.
3. Chief Medical Officer, Up Zila Hospital, Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh.
4. Senior Medical Officer, Incharge Community Health
Centre, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
5. Executive Engineer, Medical And Health, Division Churu.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3758/2025
1. Jogendra Pal S/o Shri Manohar Lal, Aged About 54 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 40 (Old 17), Bhadra Tehsil Bhadra
District Hanumangarh.
2. Babu Lal S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 36 Years,
Resident Of 655, Mandir Wali Gali, Chhani Badi, Tehsil
Bhadra District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Revenue, Govt.of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Bhadra District Hanumangarh.
4. Tehsildar (Revenue), Bhadra District Hanumangarh.
5. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Hanumangarh.
6. Principal Medical Officer, Sub District Hospital, Bhadra
District Hanumangarh.
7. Shri Sanjeev Beniwal, Mla Bhadra District Hanumangarh.
8. Shri Balwan Punia, Ex-Mla, Bhadra Resident Of Malkhera
Tehsil Bhadra District Hanumangarh.
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/11/2025 at 06:26:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB] (2 of 20) [CW-2639/2025]
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12021/2025
Sanjay Kumar Sharma S/o Omprakash Sharma, Aged About 44
Years, Resident Of Hathipura Bas, Tehsil- Bhadra, District-
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The
Government, Department Of Medical And Health,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
3. Director, Department Of Urban Development And
Housing, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. Principal Medical Officer, Sub District Hospital Bhadra,
District Hanumangarh.
5. Municipal Board Bhadra, District Hanumangarh Through
Its Executive Officer.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15450/2025
1. Narender Kumar S/o Shri Dharam Singh, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Bhangarh, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
2. Jahangir Khan S/o Yakub Ali, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Ward No 9 Bhadra, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The
Government, Department Of Medical And Health,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Senior Town Planer, Behind Laxmi Niwas Palace Bikaner.
4. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.
5. Sub Divisional Officer, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
6. Tehsildar, Bhadra District Hanumangarh.
7. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Hanumangarh.
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/11/2025 at 06:26:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB] (3 of 20) [CW-2639/2025]
8. Director, Department Of Urban Development And Housing
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh, Mr. R.S. Choudhary,
Mr. Manjeet Godara,
Mr. Sumer Singh Gour
Mr. Harshvardhan Thanvi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with
Ms. Aditi Sharma
Dr. Navneet Sharma, CMHO,
Hanumangarh present in person.
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Executive Officer,
Nagar Palika, Bhadra present in
person.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Judgment
Reserved on 08/09/2025
Pronounced on 04/11/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. These writ petitions (PIL) have been preferred under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following reliefs:
Writ Petition No. 2639/2025:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that
this Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and by an
appropriate writ, order or direction;
(i) The respondents may kindly be restrained from
constructing the Sub District Hospital, Bhadra at Patwar
Halka Ramgadiya, Jogiwala, Bhadra.
(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to demolish
the old CHC, Bhadra and construct the new Sub District
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB] (4 of 20) [CW-2639/2025]
Hospital at that place only in pursuance of the work order
(Annex.4).
(iii) Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble High
Court deems just and proper may kindly be granted in
favour of the petitioner.
(iv) Costs of the Writ Petition may kindly be awarded to the
Petitioner."
Writ Petition No.3758/2025:
"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this
writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed:
(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the
communication dated 07.01.2025 (Annex.16) may kindly
be declared highly arbitrary, unjust and same may kindly
be quashed and set aside.
(b) The respondent authorities may kindly be directed to
construct the new building for Sub District Hospital, Bhadra
District Hanumangarh over the land of Khasra No.139/117
measuring 3.036 hectares allotted by the District Collector
vide order dated 19.12.2024.
(c) The respondent authorities may kindly be restrained
from constructing the new building of Sub District Hospital
at the present land of CHC as well as the land of Square
No.57 of Chak 10 Barani gifted by the private persons.
(d) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed
in favour of the petitioners.
(e) Writ Petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be
allowed with costs."
Writ Petition No. 12021/2025:
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition of the
petitioners may kindly be allowed and the Hon'ble Court
may be pleased by an appropriate writ, order or direction:
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB] (5 of 20) [CW-2639/2025]
A/ The respondent State authorities may kindly be
directed to construct and established the sub district
hospital, Bhadra as per the mandate of master plan 2010-
31 and the land which is already earmarked in the master
plan notification dated 31.05.2012 of Town Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh.
B/ That the order dated 19.12.2024 (Annex.-9) passed the
District Collector Hanumangarh for allotment the land at
Village Dhani Khokhran, Tehsil Bhadra, as well as the order
dated 07.01.2025 (Annex-11) passed by the District
Collector Hanumangarh for construction of the Sub District
Hospital Bhadra upon the 16000 sq. mtrs may kindly be
quashed and set aside.
C/ The Respondent authorities may kindly be directed to
ensure the compliance of the circular dated 04.08.2022
(Annex-8) issued by the Department of Medical and Health,
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and ensure the
construction of the building of the Sub District Hospital,
Bhadra upon the land with the minimum requirement of
the 28500 sq. mtrs area which is already reserved in the
master plan as 8.8 acre.
D/ Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed
in favour of the petitioner.
E/ Writ Petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be
allowed with costs."
Writ Petition No. 15450/2025:
"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this
writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed:
(a) That the impugned communication dated 07.01.2025
may kindly be declared highly arbitrary, unjust and same
may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(b) The respondent authorities may kindly be restrained
from constructing the new building of Sub District Hospital
on land mentioned in communication dated 07.01.2025 as
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB] (6 of 20) [CW-2639/2025]
donation and registry was done in violation of law and
same was invalid
(c) The respondent authorities may kindly be restrained
from constructing the new building of Sub District Hospital
on the murba No.57 Chak 10 barani in 2/4, 3/3, 8/2, 13/2,
3/6, 4/3, 5/6, 6/2, 67, 8/1, 13/14 & 15/1 total 13 rakba
1.3024 Hectare gifted by private persons.
(d) That the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 may kindly
be quashed and set aside as same violation of master plan,
(e) That the respondents may kindly be directed to
construct the hospital according to the master 2010-31,
(f) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed
in favour of the petitioners.
(g) Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be
allowed with costs."
2. The principal issue arising for consideration in this batch of
writ petitions pertains to a common grievance regarding the
determination of the site for establishment and construction of the
Sub-District Hospital (SDH) at Bhadra, District Hanumangarh. The
petitioners have impugned the administrative decision of the State
Government whereby the proposed hospital is sought to be
constructed upon privately gifted/donated land in substitution of
the government land earlier identified for the said purpose.
2.1. Since all the petitions involve the same factual background
and legal questions, they are being decided by this common
judgment.
3. The undisputed factual matrix reveals that by order dated
19.12.2024, the District Collector, Hanumangarh allotted
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB] (7 of 20) [CW-2639/2025]
government land bearing Khasra No. 139/117, Village Dhani
Khokharan, admeasuring 3.036 hectares (approx. 8 bighas 12
biswas), for establishment of a Sub-District Hospital under the
Medical & Health Department.
3.1. Subsequently, private individuals, namely Shri Ramesh
Kumar S/o Chand Lal Beniwal, Shri Suresh Kumar S/o Chand Lal
Beniwal and Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Suresh Kumar Beniwal,
voluntarily gifted to the State land comprising Khasra Nos. 382 to
386, Square No. 57, Chak 10 Barani (Mitasar South), measuring 5
bighas 7 biswas (approximately 13,800 sq. m), by a registered
gift-deed dated 02.01.2025 for construction of the same hospital.
Acting upon the said deed, the State issued a communication
dated 07.01.2025 deciding to shift the hospital site from the
government land to the donated parcel.
3.2. This change of location forms the central subject of challenge
in the present writ petitions.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners advanced
elaborate submissions assailing the decision of the State
Government dated 07.01.2025, whereby the proposed site of the
Sub-District Hospital (SDH) at Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, was
shifted from the earlier government land to a parcel of privately
gifted/donated land.
4.1. In Writ Petition No.2639/2025, Mr. Manjeet Godra, learned
counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the writ petition raises
two principal issues. Firstly, it was contended that the existing
Community Health Centre (CHC), Bhadra, being situated at a
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB] (8 of 20) [CW-2639/2025]
centralized location within the town, ought to have been upgraded
and converted into the Sub-District Hospital, as such conversion
would ensure better accessibility and convenience for the general
public. Secondly, it was urged that substantial public infrastructure
and medical resources already exist at the CHC, which, if suitably
utilized, would enable the State to establish the Sub-District
Hospital without incurring fresh and avoidable expenditure. It was
further submitted that the existing CHC premises are structurally
amenable to refitting and expansion, and therefore, constructing a
new building on a different site would not serve the purpose of
prudent utilization of public resources. Learned counsel thus
argued that the proposal to establish a new hospital on an entirely
different parcel of land amounts to an unwarranted and
uneconomical diversion of public funds.
4.2. In Writ Petition No.3758/2025, Mr. R. S. Choudhary, learned
counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Sub-District
Hospital ought to be constructed upon the government land
bearing Khasra No.139/117, situated at Village Dhani Khokharan,
Tehsil Bhadra, which had already been allotted in favour of the
Medical and Health Department by the District Collector,
Hanumangarh, vide order dated 19.12.2024. It was contended
that the said government land, measuring approximately 8 bighas
and 12 biswas, is adequate in area, centrally situated with respect
to adjoining government offices, and suitable for future expansion
of the medical facility. Learned counsel urged that the private
donated land, comprising Khasra Nos.382 to 386, Square No.57,
Chak 10 Barani (Mitasar South), measuring only about 5 bighas
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB] (9 of 20) [CW-2639/2025]
and 7 biswas, is inadequate in size and unsuitable for establishing
a fully equipped Sub-District Hospital. It was submitted that the
surrounding area of the earlier government site already houses
several government establishments, thereby making it an ideal
and coordinated location for a public hospital. However, for
political and extraneous reasons, the government shifted the
project to the private parcel, which, according to the petitioners, is
an arbitrary and prejudicial act against the larger public interest.
4.2.1. It was further contended that the communication dated
07.01.2025, through which the location was changed, is vitiated
by mala fides and non-application of mind. Since sufficient
government land was already available, there was no justification
to accept private donated land for a public project of this
magnitude. Learned counsel also questioned the fairness and
legality of the donation, asserting that the terms and conditions of
the gift deed are arbitrary and may not be conducive to
establishing a government hospital, as they could potentially
create administrative or ownership complications in future. It was
submitted that a public hospital must stand on government-owned
land to ensure absolute title and unfettered control of the State.
4.3. In Writ Petition No.12021/2025, Mr. Moti Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Master Plan 2010-
2031 of Bhadra, notified on 31.05.2012, has statutory force under
the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, and mandates that
all public developments must strictly conform to its zoning
regulations. It was pointed out that the minimum land
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB] (10 of 20) [CW-2639/2025]
requirement for a Sub-District Hospital, as per the master plan, is
28,500 square metres (8.8 acres), which had been duly reserved
for medical use. The earlier government site allotted vide order
dated 19.12.2024 fully satisfied this requirement, whereas the
donated land, being only about 13,800 square metres, falls
significantly short of the prescribed area, rendering the decision
contrary to the master plan. Learned counsel further contended
that any deviation from the master plan without following due
statutory procedure and public notice under Section 23-A of the
Act is impermissible. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this
Court in Gulab Kothari, Editor, Rajasthan Patrika v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) No.1554/2004, decided on
12.01.2017), wherein it was held that the master plan is a binding
statutory document, and no administrative authority can alter or
override it without due process of law.
4.4. In Writ Petition No.15450/2025, Mr. Ankur Mathur, learned
counsel for the petitioners, reiterated that the change of location
of the Sub-District Hospital vide communication dated 07.01.2025
is contrary to law, public interest, and planning discipline. It was
submitted that strict adherence to the master plan is essential to
ensure equitable urban development and sustainable
infrastructure planning. It was further contended that the private
donated site, being of smaller dimensions and limited access, is
not conducive to efficient public healthcare operations and would
impede future expansion and accessibility for the residents of
Bhadra and surrounding villages.
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB] (11 of 20) [CW-2639/2025]
5. Per contra, Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate
General, assisted by Ms. Aditi Sharma, appearing on behalf of the
State-respondents, opposed the writ petitions and supported the
impugned decision dated 07.01.2025, whereby the State
Government decided to establish the Sub-District Hospital (SDH)
at Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, on privately gifted/donated
land.
5.1. Learned AAG submitted that the private donors, have
voluntarily gifted land comprising Khasra Nos. 382 to 386, forming
part of Square No.57, Chak 10 Barani (Mitasar South), measuring
about 5 bighas and 7 biswas (approximately 13,800 sq. metres),
through a registered gift deed dated 02.01.2025, for construction
of the Sub-District Hospital. It was submitted that the said land is
ideally suited in terms of location, accessibility, and planning
parameters, being only 1.6 kilometres from the Bhadra Bus Stand,
900 metres from Vishwakarma Circle, and approximately 300
metres from National Highway No.62 (Bhadra-Nohar Road). The
approach road is 60 feet wide, which is sufficient to handle ingress
and egress of hospital traffic. Learned AAG emphasized that the
location falls within the core population zone of Bhadra town,
ensuring that the proposed hospital remains easily accessible to
citizens of the town as well as the adjoining rural areas.
5.2. It was further contended that the national highway adjacent
to the site does not carry heavy traffic density, and since the
proposed location is set back by about 300 metres from the
highway, the same would not pose any risk to patients or impede
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB] (12 of 20) [CW-2639/2025]
vehicular access. The learned AAG submitted that all technical and
physical parameters for the hospital have been duly assessed by
the Medical and Health Department and the Public Works
Department, and the selected site was found more suitable and
feasible than the earlier government land allotted under order
dated 19.12.2024. It was argued that the size, topography, and
accessibility of the donated land make it conducive for immediate
construction and operational efficiency, and therefore, the decision
does not suffer from any infirmity.
5.3. The learned AAG submitted that all technical and physical
parameters for the hospital have been duly assessed by the
Medical and Health Department and the Public Works Department,
and the selected site was found more suitable and feasible than
the earlier government land allotted under order dated
19.12.2024. It was argued that the size, topography, and
accessibility of the donated land make it conducive for immediate
construction and operational efficiency, and therefore, the decision
does not suffer from any infirmity.
5.4. As regards the contention of the petitioners relating to the
existing Community Health Centre (CHC), Bhadra, learned AAG
submitted that the CHC shall continue to function independently
and that the State has no intention to close or merge the same. It
was assured that the CHC infrastructure will be used to augment
and complement existing medical services, but not to substitute
the proposed Sub-District Hospital. Learned AAG submitted that
converting the CHC into an SDH would have been
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB] (13 of 20) [CW-2639/2025]
counterproductive, as it would restrict healthcare facilities to the
old parameters and deprive citizens of the additional services and
infrastructure mandated under the Indian Public Health Standards
(IPHS) for a Sub-District Hospital.
5.5. Dealing with the argument on violation of the Master Plan
2010-2031, learned AAG submitted that the donated land falls
within the Peripheral Control Zone, where the construction of
public utilities is expressly permissible in terms of Condition No.14
of the State Notification dated 14.10.2024, which was issued
under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. The said
condition provides that public utilities such as hospitals, schools,
and other government establishments may be constructed in the
peripheral zone subject to environmental safeguards and
conformity with layout regulations. Hence, the proposed
construction is in complete consonance with the planning norms
and statutory framework.
5.6. Learned AAG further submitted that the building design and
site plan of the proposed hospital conform fully to the Indian
Public Health Standards (IPHS), and the land area of
approximately 13,800 square metres is well within the prescribed
norms for a Sub-District Hospital of 100-bed capacity, which,
under the IPHS 2022 guidelines, requires between 12,000 to
14,000 square metres. In support, it was pointed out that the
Sub-District Hospital constructed at Mandawari, Dausa, occupies
only 15,000 square feet, which is significantly lesser than the land
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB] (14 of 20) [CW-2639/2025]
available at the Bhadra site, thereby demonstrating that adequate
space is available for the proposed project.
5.6.1. It was contended that the gifted land stands verified by the
District Collector, Hanumangarh, as free from all encumbrances or
litigation, and the registered gift deed dated 02.01.2025 conveys
absolute title to the State Government without any restrictive or
reversionary conditions. The civil suit cited by the petitioners has
already been withdrawn, and thus no dispute remains pending.
5.7. Learned AAG lastly placed reliance upon paragraph 205(vii)
of the judgment in Gulab Kothari, Editor, Rajasthan Patrika v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) No.1554/2004,
decided on 12.01.2017), wherein this Court held that construction
of public utility structures, including hospitals, is permissible in the
peripheral control area when undertaken in larger public interest
and in consultation with the competent planning authority. It was
submitted that the present project falls squarely within this
exception, being a public health initiative of considerable
importance, and any interference at this stage would cause
serious prejudice to public welfare and delay the establishment of
vital medical infrastructure at Bhadra.
5.8. Summarising his submissions, learned Additional Advocate
General contended that the decision of the State Government is
based on due administrative consideration, supported by technical
evaluation, and is neither arbitrary nor mala fide. The site
selection is in conformity with the planning norms, statutory
provisions, and IPHS guidelines, and the donated land, being
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB] (15 of 20) [CW-2639/2025]
centrally located and accessible, is most suitable for the
establishment of the Sub-District Hospital. It was, therefore,
prayed that the writ petitions, being devoid of merit, be dismissed.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and
perusing the material available on record, including the orders
dated 19.12.2024, 02.01.2025 and 07.01.2025, the Master Plan
2010-2031, the Notification 14.10.2024 (Annexure-R/16) and also
the judgment rendered in Gulab Kothari, Editor, Rajasthan Patrika
v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) No.1554/2004,
decided on 12.01.2017), this Court finds that broadly the following
issues arise for consideration in the present batch of writ
petitions:
(a) Whether the old existing Community Health Centre (CHC),
Bhadra, should have been utilized or upgraded for construction of
the Sub-District Hospital at Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
(b) Whether the new proposed gifted/donated site is in
accordance with the Master Plan 2010-2031 of Bhadra town.
(c) Whether the site earlier allotted by the District Collector vide
order dated 19.12.2024 (government land) or the newly selected
site approved vide order dated 07.01.2025 (private gifted/donated
land) is more appropriate and suitable for the future needs of the
Sub-District Hospital at Bhadra.
(d) Whether the ratio laid down in Gulab Kothari (supra)
regarding construction in the peripheral control belt applies to the
present case.
(e) Whether there exists any other legal or factual impediment to
the establishment of the Sub-District Hospital at Bhadra.
7. After carefully considering the rival submissions and
examining the record, this Court is of the view that judicial
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB] (16 of 20) [CW-2639/2025]
interference in policy or administrative decisions relating to public
infrastructure projects, such as the establishment of a Sub-District
Hospital, must be limited to instances of manifest illegality,
arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions. The
Court does not act as an appellate authority to substitute its own
opinion for that of the competent administrative agency, unless
the decision is so unreasonable that no prudent authority would
have taken it.
8. In the present case, the record demonstrates that the private
gifted/donated land, comprising Khasra Nos.382 to 386, Square
No.57, Chak 10 Barani (Mitasar South), measuring about 5 bighas
and 7 biswas (approximately 13,800 sq. metres), was offered
through a registered gift deed dated 02.01.2025. The site is
situated 1.6 kilometres from the Bhadra Bus Stand, 900 metres
from Vishwakarma Circle, and about 300 metres from National
Highway No.62, and is connected by a 60-foot-wide approach
road. The technical inspection reports on record confirm that the
land satisfies the Indian Public Health Standards (IPHS 2022),
which prescribe approximately 12,000-14,000 sq. metres for a
Sub-District Hospital of 100-bed capacity. The location is thus both
accessible and compliant with the prescribed parameters.
8.1. As regards the argument that the existing CHC should have
been upgraded to a Sub-District Hospital, the Court notes that
while the CHC is centrally located, no material or technical report
has been placed on record to demonstrate that it meets the
requisite IPHS standards, or that it can be structurally refitted to
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB] (17 of 20) [CW-2639/2025]
accommodate the larger infrastructural and service requirements
of a Sub-District Hospital. The State has assured that the CHC will
continue to function independently and its resources will be
enhanced for primary healthcare needs. The Court finds merit in
the State's position that converting the CHC into the SDH would
restrict the scope of healthcare services and diminish the
availability of dual medical facilities within the region.
9. It is also evident from the record that the site earlier allotted
by the District Collector on 19.12.2024, located at Village Dhani
Khokharan (Khasra No.139/117), is larger in dimension
(approximately 8 bighas 12 biswas) but situated about 7
kilometres away from the core town of Bhadra, outside the main
habitation area. The newly proposed site, on the other hand, lies
approximately 1.6 kilometres from the main bus stand and 900
metres from Vishwakarma Circle, and is therefore more accessible
to the core population. For a medical facility intended to serve the
urban and semi-urban residents of Bhadra, accessibility assumes
greater significance than mere size. Hence, the present location,
though smaller, is more appropriate in terms of public
convenience, proximity, and immediate utility.
10. On the question of conformity with the Master Plan 2010-
2031, this Court finds that the donated site falls within the
Peripheral Control Zone of Bhadra. However, as per Condition
No.14 of the State Notification dated 14.10.2024
(Annexure-R/16), construction of public utilities, including
hospitals, schools, and other government establishments, is
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB] (18 of 20) [CW-2639/2025]
permissible within the peripheral control area when justified by
planning authorities in the larger public interest. The record
contains no objection from the planning authority or the Urban
Improvement Trust. Therefore, the construction of the Sub-District
Hospital at the donated site cannot be said to be contrary to the
Master Plan, particularly when the State has acted within the
ambit of a statutory notification permitting such development.
11. This Court observes that the reliance placed by the
petitioners on Gulab Kothari (supra) is misplaced. The said
judgment, while affirming the binding nature of master plans, also
carves out an exception, as seen in paragraph 205(vii), allowing
for construction of public utilities in peripheral control belts where
such activity is approved by planning authorities and serves the
larger public good. The present case clearly falls within this
exception. The competent authorities have assessed the location
and found it suitable for the intended purpose. Accordingly, the
reliance on Gulab Kothari (supra) does not render the
impugned decision illegal. The re-fitting issue as raised on behalf
of the petitioners is not creating any negative implications as per
the record.
12. The Court further observes that the gifted/donated land is
free from encumbrances and litigation, and that the registered gift
deed dated 02.01.2025 conveys absolute ownership to the State
Government without any reversionary or conditional clauses. The
allegations of mala fides or political influence raised by the
petitioners are not supported by any cogent material on record.
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB] (19 of 20) [CW-2639/2025]
The decision to shift the hospital site appears to have been taken
after due deliberation and upon consideration of technical and
logistical factors. The plea of arbitrariness or lack of bona fides,
therefore, does not withstand judicial scrutiny.
13. Insofar as the argument regarding environmental and
regulatory compliance is concerned, the State has undertaken that
all statutory approvals, including building and layout clearances,
shall be obtained prior to commencement of major construction
work.
14. This Court is of the opinion that the Sub-District Hospital
project at Bhadra represents a matter of public importance. Any
delay in its establishment would cause prejudice to the health and
welfare of the residents of the region. The approach adopted by
the State, to retain the CHC as a continuing facility while
constructing a new Sub-District Hospital at a more accessible
location, would result in augmentation of medical infrastructure,
not duplication or reduction of services. The project thus advances
the State's obligations under Article 47 of the Constitution and the
fundamental right to health implicit under Article 21.
15. In view of the foregoing analysis and keeping in mind the
larger public interest, this Court finds that the decision of the
State Government dated 07.01.2025 cannot be said to be
arbitrary, unlawful, or violative of any statutory provision. The
donated site, being centrally located, accessible, and compliant
with IPHS and planning parameters, is appropriate for construction
of the Sub-District Hospital at Bhadra, District Hanumangarh. The
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39644-DB] (20 of 20) [CW-2639/2025]
reliance placed on Gulab Kothari (supra) by the petitioners is
misconceived, as the said decision itself recognizes the
permissibility of public projects in peripheral control zones when
undertaken for the larger public good.
16. Accordingly, and in the larger interest of justice and public
welfare, the instant writ petitions are dismissed with liberty to
the State Government to continue with the construction of the
Sub-District Hospital at Bhadra on the gifted/donated land (Khasra
Nos.382 to 386, Square No.57, Chak 10 Barani, Mitasar South).
The State shall ensure expeditious completion of the project and
continued functioning of the existing CHC as an independent
healthcare facility. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
