JUDGMENT 1. - On 11th December, 2001, a learned Single Judge of this Court (quorum Hon'ble S.K. Keshote, J.) initiated a suo- motu action on the basis of three different news items dated 8th December, 2001, 10th December, 2001 and 11th December, 2001 published in the daily issues of Rajasthan Patrika Jaipur addition. The news items are quoted to extenso in the order dated 11th December, 2001 and on that basis, a detailed order running into 8 pages was drawn and the Registry was directed to register this matter as a suo-motu miscellaneous writ petition, admitted the writ petition and directed that notice of the petition be issued to the State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority through its Secretary and the Town Planning Department through its Secretary. Respondents No. 1 & 2 were also directed to be personally present with the record relating to Lal Kothi Yojna through an officer of the level of Deputy Secretary and the Commissioner of Jaipur Development Authority (in short J.D.A.) was directed to send an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner alongwith the file relating to the road which is being constructed in village Herver of Tehsil Amer and that such officer should be personally present. The copies of the relevant news items were included in the file and the notices were made returnable on 7th January, 2002. On 7th January, 2002 when the matter came up before the regular Bench hearing miscellaneous matters (quorum Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.), it was observed after hearing the parties which were present before him, that whether the appended news items involve pubic interest or not, this is question which can only be decided by the Division Bench and therefore, the matter was directed to be placed before the Division Bench and this is how this matter has come up before this court today as ordered on 7th January, 2002. 2. On behalf of the respondents i.e. State of Rajasthan, Jaipur Development Authority and Town Planning Department, a reply dated 7th January, 2002 supported by an affidavit of Shri H.S. Bhardwaj working as Deputy Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur has been filed with certain documents. Before us, arguments have been made by Shri S.M. Mehta, learned Advocate General on behalf of the three respondents, by Mr. Before us, arguments have been made by Shri S.M. Mehta, learned Advocate General on behalf of the three respondents, by Mr. Ajeet Kumar Sharma, Advocate on behalf of the 15 villagers of Village Herver, Tehsil Amer including the Sarpanch, Upsarpanch, Ex-Upsarpanchas, Ex-ward Panchas and some other villagers, by Shri Narendra Jain, Advocate on behalf of the Everest Colony, Lal Kothi Samiti, Plot No. 40, Everest Colony, Lai Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur through its president Shri S.S. Singhvi as well as on behalf of Shri B.L. Gupta S/o Shri Kishan Sahai Choudhary resident of Everest Colony, Jaipur, by Shri Mohan Singh Raghav, Advocate on behalf of Pratap Singh Khachariyavas, Shri Vimal Choudhary, Advocate on behalf of Shri R.N. Singh, retired Accounts Officer of A.G. Office and Shri Lokesh Atray, Advocate on behalf of Lail Devi. All these parties other than the three respondents have been heard as interveners in this matter.1. The news item dated 8.12.2001 3. So far as the first news items dated 8th December, 2001 relating to the grievance of Lali Devi as was published in news item dated 8th December, 2001 is concerned, the grievance appears to be that the road was being taken through her field while leaving the encroachments made by others as such, she had been subjected to harassment. It has been pointed out in the reply filed by the State that initially Lail Devi widow of Rampal had submitted a complaint to the Commissioner of J.D.A., Jaipur on 28th November, 2001 and the Deputy Commissioner had directed on 3rd December, 2001 that the measurement of the land should be first taken and till this was done the construction should be stopped and therefore, on 8th December, 2001 Patwari J.D.A. was directed by Tehsildar to conduct the measurement of the land and ensure that the work was stopped. The Deputy Commissioner Zone D. 2 by his letter dated 27th December, 2001 requested the Sub Divisional Officer, Amer for a joint measurement of the land in dispute especially Khasra No. 381 and 375 and it was also mentioned in this letter that the work of construction of link road was lying standstill on account of this dispute. The Deputy Commissioner Zone D. 2 by his letter dated 27th December, 2001 requested the Sub Divisional Officer, Amer for a joint measurement of the land in dispute especially Khasra No. 381 and 375 and it was also mentioned in this letter that the work of construction of link road was lying standstill on account of this dispute. The Sub Divisional Officer, Amer deputed one Inspector Land Records and two Patwaries and J.D.A. deputed one Patwari and one Amin and all of them conducted a joint survey/measurement of the land in dispute and submitted the report on 2.1.2002 mentioning therein that if the land of Khasra No. 381 was measured from the permanent boundary (pukhta danda) advancing towards south, there was a difference found between the ground position and the position indicated in the map and it appears that the road had been partly constructed over the land of East South corner of Khasra No. -381. Copies of the letter dated 26th December, 2001 addressed to SDO, Amer and joint report dated 2.1.2002 have been placed on record. It has been further mentioned that a committee consisting of Additional District Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner. J.D.A. was constituted to examine the complaint and submit the report on 3rd January, 2002. This committee visited the site on 2.1.2002 and on 3rd January,2002 and made an in-depth enquiry into the allegations. They also inspected the revenue records and enquired from the SHO Police Station Amer as to what action was taken on the complaint of Lail Devi. The SHO had informed the Head Constable Prabhu Dayal was deputed to make enquiry and he had recorded various statements and the investigation was still pending. It has been further mentioned that Lail Devi as well as Ram Nath whose land in situated on the other end of the link road, both had encroached upon the land area of the road. Notices were issued to both of them under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, they were fined and their encroachments were ordered to be removed. Thereafter, a complaint was again made by certain villagers to the District Collector on 8th October, 2001 alleging encroachment on the land and prayer for removing it so that construction of the road could be completed. Thereafter, a complaint was again made by certain villagers to the District Collector on 8th October, 2001 alleging encroachment on the land and prayer for removing it so that construction of the road could be completed. Such encroachment was removed by Tehsildar, Amer with the police help on 15th October, 2001 during the drive of administration 'PRASHASAN GANVON KE SANG'. This committee had also recommended that the road appears to have been expanded over the land of Khasra No. 381 inside the Khasra upto 5 feet and therefore, the width of the road at this point should be reduced from 26 feet to 21 feet so that the widow could be granted the relief. The total land area of Khasra No. 381 is 0. 74 hectare. The committee found that the width of the road was more at this point only because of turn on both the sides, :t has increased due to the passing vehicles. The committee on enquiry from the villagers and other persons from the area did not find any substance in the allegation of harassment of Lail Devi at the hands of J.D.A. officers or revenue staff. The committee also did not find any substance in the allegation that JDA officers were trying to protect the land of any influential persons. The committee noted that earlier when the Inspector Land Record with his team conducted the measurement of the land, the complainant Lali Devi was present but she declined to make signatures on their report and that complainant was in possession of the entire land of Khasra No. 381 measuring 0. 74 hectare plus land of Khasra No. 380 measuring 0.09 hectare. Thus total 0.83 hectare of this entire land was already in possession of Mst. Lali Devi and other co-tenants. If the land of Khasra No. 381 is measured from boundary referred to above, the road appears to have been constructed over a portion of Khasra No. 381 towards East South corner and excluding this additional 5 feet, already, Mst. Lali Devi possesses O. 83 hectare. This difference cold be owning to the use of incorrect scale in preparation of map. Lali Devi possesses O. 83 hectare. This difference cold be owning to the use of incorrect scale in preparation of map. The respondents had now decided not to construct any road over that area of 5 feet of East South corner of Khasra No. 381 identified by the committee subject to any just claim that may be made by the National High way Authorities on the land in dispute as per the pars meters of the width applicable to National Highway. It has been submitted that the grievance of the Mst. Lali Devi has been remedied completely and no substance has been found for undue harassment or of giving undue benefit to any influential person. The Government order dated 1.1.2002 constituting the committee, copy of the report dated 4.1.2002 and copy of the map prepared by the team of Revenue Inspector have been placed on record. 4. Shri Ajeet Kumar Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Sarpanch, Upsarpanch, Ex-ward Panchas and other residents of village Herver has referred to the resolutions passed by the Gram Sabha way back on 15th August, 2001 and has submitted that on account of the encroachment which was made by Mst. Lali Devi, the construction of the road was stopped and he has prayed that the directions be issued for completing the incomplete construction work of the road. 5. Mr. Lokesh Atray, Advocate appearing on behalf of Lali Devi has submitted that what has been stated in reply by the Government is factually incorrect. It is admitted by him that Mst. Lali Devi as well as Shri Ramnath, who had Service Station, both belong to Scheduled Tribe and their grievances are real in nature, but the same has not been taken care of. He has also produced before us a map and through this map, he has tried to show that the road which could be taken without disturbing her land, has been taken through her field. 6. On this aspect of the matter, having considered the submissions as have been made at the bar before us and having gone through the reply, we find that apart from the obtaining position that there are disputed questions of fact, it is very clear that the news item dated 8.12.2001 on the basis of which cognizance was taken by the Court did not contain the correct and complete disclosure of the full facts. Besides this, the grievance which has been sought to be raised on behalf of Lali Devi is more of personal nature than that of public nature.2. The news item dated 10.12.2001 7. The news item dated 10th December, 2001 relates to the regularisation of Lai Kothi Scheme. In this news item, it is reported that with regard to the Lai Kothi Scheme in the matter of regularisation the allegations were levelled against the Minister. It was disclosed by Shri Pratap Singh Khachariyavas to the press correspondents that the special committee of the Cabinet in the name of regularisation of Lai Kothi had benefited the influential persons by crores of rupees and the land of crores of rupees had been regularised at throw away price. He demanded the enquiry through C.B.I. or a Judicial Court. It was further stated by him that because of this attitude of the Government, the resident of Prithviraj Nagar had lost faith that they will get justice. Shri Pratap Singh Khachariyavas also wants that in case, the rate of regularisation is fixed to be more than Rs. 40/- in Prithviraj Nagar, nobody will deposit the amount. On this aspect of the matter in reply which has been filed by the State, it has been stated that Lal Kothi Scheme is spread over a total land area of 482 acres and dispute pertains to only 82 bighas of land equivalent to 33.56 acres. For the area in dispute a land of 552 bighas was proposed to be acquired by issue of notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 on 13th May, 1960. Notification under Section 6 was issued on 3rd May, 1961. In all 14 different awards were passed on different dates starting from the largest award of 400 bighas and 7 biswas dated 9.1.1964 and various other awards were also passed form time to time upto the year 1998 excluding the two i.e. land relating to Pratap Nursery and land of Mehar Chand and Sons measuring 9 bighas and 6 biswas and 2 bighas and 12 biswas respectively (total 11 bighas and 18 biswas). The award in relation to all other lands measuring 541 bighas and 10 biswas had been passed. The award in relation to all other lands measuring 541 bighas and 10 biswas had been passed. The respondents have proposed to regularise 12 colonies covering the total land area of 65 bighas and the land of two Nurseries namely Anand Nursery (5 bighas), Pratap Nursery (9 bighas 6 biswas) and Mehar Chand & Sons (2 bighas and 12 biswas), in all 17 bighas of land, thus a total of 82 bighas. If the ratio of the disputed land is compared with the total area of the Lal Kothi Scheme as originally planned, it would be evident that the scheme has been substantially implemented. Scheme covers Sawai Mansingh Stadium, Government Offices, Assembly Building, Wool Grading Centre, various Educational Institutions wholesale market, District Centre, Hotels, Sabji Mandi, MLA Quarters, Oil Depot Etc. It has been then submitted that the State of Rajasthan had taken a policy decision to settle the long standing problem of regularisation of the housing colonies that had come up on agriculture land throughout the State. The Government was facing this problem not only in Jaipur City but also in all major cities and towns of the State including the smaller towns wherever the Municipalities existed. A uniform policy decision was taken with respect to all these minor and major towns and a comprehensive policy was evolved to ensure that the problem faced by the Government for past more than three decades be so tackled that while common man is relieved of the ever existing tension regarding his status as a owner vis-a-vis his title over the land, the Government also realised the cost of development that it might be required to undertake upon regularisation of all these colonies. Most of the housing colonies with the expansion of different cities have come up on agriculture lands and use of agriculture land for any purpose other than the agriculture was prohibited by the Rajasthan Tenancy Act as well as by the Land Revenue Act. The Government, therefore, taking into consideration the provisions of Tenancy A3i, Land Revenue Act, Jaipur Development Authority Act made certain amendments in the provisions bringing about amendment in the aforementioned five enactment vide notification dated 8th October, 1999 as published in the Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 11th October, 1999. The dispute regarding these housing colonies has been going on since 1960. The dispute regarding these housing colonies has been going on since 1960. Housing societies had sold out the plot in Sixtees itself and many plot holders had constructed the houses. The problem had been perpetuating before the Government from time to time, but could not be solved. The acquisition had been upheld in different matters at different points of time, but the Government had to deal with the problem from the humanitarian and practical point of view in as much as a large number of houses had already been constructed. The Government had taken a decision to regularise these colonies which had come up on acquired lands and the Government land elsewhere also and therefore, it had taken a decision for this area as well by uniformly applying the policy as was done in such similar cases in other parts of the State. Reference has been then made to the survey which was conducted by the J.D.A. in the month of January, 2001 and it was revealed that out of total 531 plots of 12 different colonies, while 297 plots had been fully constructed, 193 were partly constructed. Thus, there remained only 38 vacant plots. Large number of cases (as many as 242 in number) were pending in relation to this Scheme in different Courts at different levels and on account of this, the development of the area of the Scheme could not be ensured on the planned lines for past 40 years. Members of these societies who had constructed house had been mostly residing there for past 2-3 decades. The reference has been made to the proceedings of the meeting held by J.D.A. and it has been submitted that the Committee had considered the issues threadbare and in its last meeting dated 28th September, 2001, it was recommended to the Government to regularise the plots of the housing colonies in the Lal Kothi Scheme by charging 25% of the residential reserve price in case of plots upto the size of 200 sq. yds. and charging 35% of the reserve price of the land exceeding 200 sq. yds. In relation to 80 plots of Everest and Salt Colonies decision of their regularisation was taken in the year 1976, it was directed that they may be charged 25% of the reserve price. yds. and charging 35% of the reserve price of the land exceeding 200 sq. yds. In relation to 80 plots of Everest and Salt Colonies decision of their regularisation was taken in the year 1976, it was directed that they may be charged 25% of the reserve price. The Committee had made various other recommendations and accepting the recommendations of the Committee, the Government issued the order dated 6th December, 2001 in which various decisions were conveyed to the J.D.A. including one in relation to regularisation of the housing colonies. It has been submitted that 490 plots out of 53 involved spending of huge money by various citizens who mostly come from middle class or lower middle class of the society and they had been residing there for past more than 2-3 decades.In view of these ground realities and the fact that any decision taken otherwise involving there ejectment and consequential demolition/destruction would have created a great human problem and cause loss of national property, Government being a welfare State took a decision in respect of such similarly situated houses constructed over Government land, Siwaichak, Pasture land, acquired land throughout State to regularise it by charging 25% of the reserve price, the decision to regularise these colonies was taken in public interest and in a most bonafide manner so as to give effect to the policies of the Government of the day. Learned Advocate General on the basis of these submissions have argued that in view of the history with regard to these housing colonies as has been pleaded, it is very clear that the Government had taken this policy decision with regard to the regularisation also keeping in view the fact that despite the acquisition being upheld and further that when the fresh notification was issued for acquisition, the same was also stayed as the J.D.A. was not in a position to pay compensation. Looking to all these facts, a policy decision had been taken, such policy decision cannot be said to be contrary to the public interest and therefore, instead of paying compensation, if the policy decision had been taken to regularise the plots of housing colonies by charging 25% of the reserve price, it cannot be said that public interest is likely to suffer. Mr. Mr. S.M. Mehta, learned Advocate General in support of his argument has cited the judgments rendered in the case of Ramswaroop Bagari v. State of Rajasthan & others reported in 2001(3) WLC 691 , JT 2001(10) SC 466 , Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and others reported in 1999(1) SCC 492 and Jaipur Development Authority v. Radhey Shyam and others reported in 1994(4) SCC 370 . 8. Mr. Mohan Singh Raghav, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Pratap Singh Khachariyavas read out certain news paper clippings which he unfolded from his own brief and submitted that his client is a public spirited person and his war is against the rampant corruption. Mr. Raghav cited before us the case of Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain and others reported in 1997(1) SCC 35 and laid stress on para 9 to 13 of 1997(1) SCC 35 of this judgment. It is submitted that if the land of crores of rupees is given at throw away price, it cannot be said to be in public interest. He has submitted that it is an illustrative misuse of power and the general principles of social moralities have not been observed and the decision which has been observed and the decision which has been taken in this regard with regard to the regularisation of Lal Kothi Scheme has been taken for political considerations and the same cannot be sustained. 9. Mr. Vimal Choudhary, Advocate, appearing on behalf of a retired Accounts Officer has submitted that it is a case of law breakers verses law abiders. He has submitted that acquisition proceedings in this matter had taken finality and even if the fresh notification with regard to the acquisition has been stayed by the Court, the same should have been taken to the logical end. He has also made reference to the cases of Bharat Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1979 Rajasthan 209 , Jaipur Development Authority v. Radhey Shyam & Ors. reported in AIR 1994(4) SCC 370 , Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain & Others reported in AIR 1997(1) SCC 35 , Yadu Nandan Garg v. State of Rajasthan and others reported in 1996(1) SCC 334 and Dr. R.S. Gehlot & others v. State of Rajasthan & others reported in 2000 RRD 119 . reported in AIR 1994(4) SCC 370 , Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain & Others reported in AIR 1997(1) SCC 35 , Yadu Nandan Garg v. State of Rajasthan and others reported in 1996(1) SCC 334 and Dr. R.S. Gehlot & others v. State of Rajasthan & others reported in 2000 RRD 119 . He has also submitted that the order dated 6th December, 2001 has not been issued with due application of mind and three is a breach of the business rules and Article 166 of the Constitution of India, this order cannot be said to be a Government order and has also submitted that in this regard, no decision had been taken by J.D.A. as a body. It has been replied by Mr. S.M. Mehta, learned Advocate General that business rules is matter of procedure, the J.D.A. had taken a decision and requested for regularisation and a Committee had been formed by the Government in this regard, this decision was taken as per the report by this Committee and he has also produced the resolutions passed by the J.D.A. in this regard for our perusal and has submitted that the doubt may be cleared that no decision had been taken by the J.D.A. as a body in fact the decision was taken by the the J.D.A. as a body.3. The news item dated 11.12.2001 10. So far as the third question with regard to the high rise buildings is concerned, it has been submitted that earlier there were certain loopholes in the regulations which were there upto 1996 and on account of those loopholes, there could have been some lapses and keeping in view the earlier lapses, new regulations of 2000 had been framed after a prolonged exercise wherein the loopholes that were existing in the earlier regulations have been removed and now no high rise building would come up in the areas where the road is not sufficiently wide so that there was no unnecessary pressure or traffic and now the parking parameters have also been improved and made effective so that there was no unnecessary congestion in the inner part of the city. Morever in the wall city, high rise buildings are not allowed as was the position prior the Regulations of 1996 for which separate Bye laws framed in the year 1970 were there. Morever in the wall city, high rise buildings are not allowed as was the position prior the Regulations of 1996 for which separate Bye laws framed in the year 1970 were there. New Regulations have been published in the Government Gazette on 1.2.2000 and it was submitted with emphasis that a Committee was constituted and objections were invited from all concerned before framing the new regulations. As many as 51 objections were received and after consideration of 51 objections, the new Regulations had been framed with aid of the experts opinion. 11. We have gone through the pleadings, have considered the submissions as above in the light of the principles decided in various cases cited before us as referred to in the earlier part of this order. So far the propositions of law which have been laid down in the cases as above cited on behalf of both the sides, we may at once observe that there cannot be any quarrel with any of the propositions as have been laid down in these cases. 12. It is very clear from the submissions which we have considered that so far as the first item relating to Lali Devi is concerned it is more of personal nature than of public nature. The second item with regard to the regularisation of Lal Kothi Scheme is concerned, decisions has been taken as a part of the policy by the Government and there is ample authority of law to support the contention that such policy decisions cannot be made the subject matter of the judicial review. No doubt in the cases where any policy decision is taken for any reasons which are against the public interest, the judicial review is possible, but in case of this nature, it cannot be said in the facts and circumstances of this case which have been established before us with support of documents including documentary evidence of contemporaneous nature that public interest has not suffered in any manner by the decision of regularisation. To bring an end to a 40 years prolonged agony of litigation without any avail to the State, realising the ground realities that demolition of hundreds of constructed houses of the members of public belonging to middle/lower middle class is a tough task coupled with considerations which are germane, if the popular (elected) Government has taken a policy decision in tune with the pulse of masses, it is difficult for this Court to say that it is contrary to public interest. Public interest litigation is of-course meant to protect the rights and to take care of the problems of those who cannot take care of themselves in want of awareness of their own rights or to espouse a common cause and in such cases, the cognizance can certainly be taken by the Court even by way of suo-motu action in a given case on the basis of the news item or otherwise, but the public interest is neither an unbridled nor an unruly horse, which can enter any arina in an aimless race. In view of the reply public interest is transparent in the State action and we are satisfied and convinced that had there been a correct and complete disclosure of full facts perhaps the cognizance may not have been taken by the Court suo-motu. Be that as it may, now that the full facts have come on record and we have heard all the parties which are present, we have no hesitation in holding that in the instant case, there is no scope of any judicial review and to sit over the wisdom of the State functionaries and therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court with the decision which has been taken by the Government, as a part of public policy. In larger public interest even if the Government has to pay a little price, it is a small price in deed, which has to be paid, if at all we want the object of a welfare State to prevail. 13. In larger public interest even if the Government has to pay a little price, it is a small price in deed, which has to be paid, if at all we want the object of a welfare State to prevail. 13. It may also be observed in all fairness to the State that after the suo-motu action had been taken by this Court and the notices had been issued, the Government has shown due regard for Court's cognizance by staying its own order as it is stated before us that the State Government honoured the pendency of the matter in Court by directing the J.D.A. vide order dated 31st December, 2001 not to act upon the decision dated 6th December, 2001 and not to proceed further with the process of regularisation and has directed the J.D.A. to produce all the relevant records before the Court. It is, therefore, clear that the decision as had been taken on 6th December, 2001 had been stayed by the Government itself, showing due regard for the action initiated by the Court. Having heard all the parties, we find that the policy decision hardly warrants any interference by this Court. The Government and all concerned are free to proceed on the basis of the order dated 6th December, 2001 as had been passed by the Government. Reply also takes care of the issue relating to high-rise buildings on the basis of latest regulations. The up shot of the adjudication as above is that, the suo-motu petition is hereby rejected.Suo-Motu petition rejected. *******