Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2288 (RAJ)

Surendra Pal Singh v. Municipal Board, Bhinmal

2005-08-30

MANAK MOHTA

body2005
Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-The petitioner an elected Member of the Municipal Board, Bhinmal by way of instant PIL seeks direction to quash the order dated 110.2004, whereby a place of land has been handed over to the third respondent namely Smt. Anki Bai Ghamandi Ramji Gowani Kavi Magh Bal Mandir Sansthan. It is averred that the subject land was put to auction by the Municipal Board in the year 1991. The third respondent challenged this auction notice by way of writ petition before this Court, which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 254/1991. The writ petition was filed on the basis of an agreement entered into between the third respondent and the Chairman, Municipal Board, whereby the Municipal Board was agreed to make available the land as shown in the map annexed to the agreement for the purpose of the building of the school. It was also agreed that on the southern side of the land set apart for construction of the building of the school, there is a public children park which shall remain as a public park and no residential or commercial construction shall be raised thereon. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 28.08.2002 as follows:- “For the reasons stated hereinabove, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are restrained from selling the land in dispute and using that land for any other purpose/s than for the development of garden/children park. So far as the land allotted to Jalore Central Co-operative Bank and land over which construction of a room of Octroi Post and residential house for Executive Officer are raised, same being in consonance with the agreement arrived at between the parties, shall not be considered to be part of the land forming part of the public garden.” 2. It is averred that the second respondent has handed over the possession of the land in question to third respondent in the garb of the Judgment of this Court dated 28.08.2002 and further has issued a NOC for raising construction. It is further averred that the third respondent has started construction of hall after taking possession over the land in dispute. 3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the third respondent supported by the affidavit of Shri Kundan Mal. A preliminary objection has been raised as to the maintainability of the instant PIL. It is further averred that the third respondent has started construction of hall after taking possession over the land in dispute. 3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the third respondent supported by the affidavit of Shri Kundan Mal. A preliminary objection has been raised as to the maintainability of the instant PIL. It is submitted that the petitioner who is himself a Member of the Municipal Board has filed instant petition to vindicate his personal grievance. It is also stated that the petitioner has concealed the material fact that on the same controversy a civil suit is pending in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhinmal. A prayer for temporary injunction has been rejected by the trial Court. An appeal was preferred against the said order, which has also been dismissed by the Judgment of the learned District Judge, Jalore. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents, it is wrong to say that the possession of the subject land has been delivered to the third respondent in the garb of the order of this Court. It appears that the construction is not being raised on the land reserved for the Park. A statement has been made that the Park shall remain where it has been shown in the plan. On careful consideration of the matter, we are of the view that no issue of public interest is involved in the writ petition. The petitioner is an elected Member of the Municipal Board, Bhinmal. Inspeat of approaching to this Court he can more conveniently agitate the issue before the Board to which he is a Member. A democratically elected person must know how to raise an issue of public importance before a body to which he or she has been elected. No case is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India more particularly in a PIL. 5. The instant petition stands dismissed.