Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2082 (RAJ)

Arjun v. State of Rajasthan

2007-10-26

CHATRA RAM JAT, GYAN SUDHA MISRA

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners ostensibly in public interest contending that the charagah land in village Hadota, Gram Panchayat Hadota, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur has been allotted to the respondent No. 4 - Mahatma Jyotiba Pholey Vidhyapeeth Samiti, which is going to affect the interest of the villagers adversely as they would not be left with any land for grazing the cattle. 2. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents on the aforesaid averment in response to which separate replies have been filed by the respondent-State and the institution - respondent No. 4 - Mahatma Jyotiba Pholey Vidhyapeeth and it has been stated therein that only 4.83 hectares of 1 the land had been allotted to the respondent No. 4 for setting up the institution in the year 2005 and even after the allotment, the balance area of charagaha land would be left to more than 26 hectares in the entire village. Thus, there is sufficient land in village for grazing the cattle. 3. The petitioners are dissatisfied with this reply and it was sought to be 1 argued that in one plot of land, bearing khasra No. 1414, the area is 9.40 hectares and out of that if more than 4 hectares has been allotted to the respondent No. 4 - institution, the balance area would not be sufficient for grazing the cattle. 4. Having heard the counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the materials, which have been furnished to the court, ve find it difficult to appreciate the anxiety of the petitioners to file a public i iterest litigation as the petitioners seem to be concerned only with one plot of land, i.e. Khasra No. 1414, out of which a little more than 4 hectares has been allotted to the respondent No. 4. If the decision making authorities including the Collector, and other higher authorities have tried to strike a balance by allotting a little more than 4 hectares of land to the respondent No. 4, the entire village will still have sufficient land for grazing the cattle and hence the grievance of the petitioners in regard to just one plot of land cannot be entertained. Besides this, it was brought to our notice by the Government Advocate Mr. Besides this, it was brought to our notice by the Government Advocate Mr. Sharma: that the decision to permit the allotment of land to the respondent No. 4 was approved by the Gram Sabha and, therefore, the petitioners, who are only three in number, cannot be allowed to raise a grievance in regard to the allotment. 5. It is no doubt true that if a particular situation or issue touches the: conscience of the court, a public interest litigation can be entertained but that cannot be allowed to be stretched to a point where the decisions of administrative nature should be allowed to be taken at the level of certain individuals of a particular locality merely for raising a grievance confined to just one issue leaving all other issues in the lurch which is the situation in the instant case. If out of 30 hectares of land, a little more than 4 hectares of land has been allotted to the institution, it will have to be inferred that this decision was taken in public interest for the benefit of the children living in the village as the need to impart education and the need to leave charagaha land for grazing the cattle obviously has to be taken by adopting a balanced approach considering all the pros and cons regarding the need of the institution and the need for the cattle feed in terms of charagah land. We also consider it appropriate to add that unless the administrative decisions of the authorities are of an extreme nature giving rise to grave consequence, the courts would be slow in interfering with such decision. In the instant matter. we are of the view that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case where it can be inferred that the decision by the Collector and all other higher authorities, which was approved even by the Gram Sabha, is of such detrimental nature and contrary to the interest of the villagers which could have pursuaded the petitioners to file a public interest litigation in the High Court leaving all the representatives of the area, including MLAs + MPs and straightway file a public interest litigation raising their grievance. 6. We, thus, see no substance in this writ petition and hence it is dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******