Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 525 (RAJ)

Devidan Nagar Vikash Samiti, Sunathla v. State

2006-02-15

N.P.GUPTA, S.N.JHA

body2006
Judgment S.N. Jha, CJ.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Urban Improvement Trust as well as the Municipal Corporation are reducing the width of Chopasni Road which is required to be maintained at 200 ft. and side road at 60 ft. 3. The material placed on record is Annexure-1 said to be plan approved by the Senior Town Planner. Then Annexure-2 the Judgment of this Court dated 13.08.1993 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1381/1992 where by a general direction was given by this Court that the UIT should fully implement the provisions of law and see that the encroachments should be removed wherever they exist, and that the orders Annexures-4 and 5 therein should be implemented by the Urban Improvement Trust. Then, Annexure-3 is another order of this Court passed in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 6073/1993 decided on 24.03.2003. Then, Annexure-4 is another site plan said to be part of colony situated on the north side of Chopasni Road. Then, Annexure-5 said to be a composite plan comprising of Annexures-1 and 4 together. Then, Annexure-6 is the order of the Municipality whereby the application of Respondent No. 6 for permission to raise construction had been rejected. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel that despite rejection of the application vide order Annexure-6 the Respondent No. 6 has raised construction, and that the width of the road which is required to be maintained at 200 ft. is being reduced. 5. Learned Counsel referred to Annexures-1, 4 and 5 wanted to convince this Court that the width of the road was required to be maintained to the extent of 200ft., and for that purpose relied upon Annexure-3, and for reminding about the duties of Trust and Municipality relied upon Annexure-2. 6. It may at once be observed that a look at Judgment Annexure-3 shows, that it relates to a different road being Pal Road, and the directions with respect to Pal Road were given considering the traffic pressure, while Chopasni Road is altogether a different road, and, therefore, Annexure-3 cannot be pressed into service with respect to Chopasni Road. It may be not noticed here that Pal Road is a road which straightway goes from Jodhpur to Balotra, and onwards, while Chopsani Road ends at village Chopasani which by now is a suburb of Jodhpur. 7. It may be not noticed here that Pal Road is a road which straightway goes from Jodhpur to Balotra, and onwards, while Chopsani Road ends at village Chopasani which by now is a suburb of Jodhpur. 7. Then learned Counsel was asked to point out from Annexure-1 as to how does it establish that the width of road is required to be maintained at 200 ft. but the learned Counsel failed to satisfy. So far Annexure-5 is concerned, there is nothing to show that it has any approval from any such competent authority as may confer any right on the petitioner to invoke jurisdiction of this Court to maintain a particular width of the road. Apart from the fact that even from Annexure- 5 the width of road is not established to be 200ft. as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 8. In that view of the matter, the grievance of maintaining the width of road at 200ft. cannot be entertained by this Court. 9. Sofar the grievance about the Respondent No. 6 having raised construction is concerned, there is nothing to show that the construction has been raised in the maner which may require interference by this Court. Obviously, the construction has still been raised without permission it is for the authorities concerned to proceed against the delinquent in accordance with law. 10. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.