Hon'ble JAIN, J.—Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for parties. 2. The petitioners are villagers of village Phalna, Tehsil Bali, District Pali. They have preferred this Public Interest Litigation with a prayer that impugned order / Minutes of Meeting dated 19th September, 2012 (Annexure 2), whereby a permission has been granted to respondent No.4 - Trust, for the purpose of installation of statute of late Shri Kishore Mal Khimawat, be declared as illegal and be quashed and set aside. 3. It is averred in the writ petition that a permission has been granted for installation of Statute over the piece of land, which is part of land bearing Khasra No.158, which is a catchment area of Shiv Sagar Pond and is also a part of Nadi, therefore, no permission could have been granted over it, for installation of Statue. 4. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have filed reply to the writ petition, wherein it is submitted that the respondent No.4 is a Charitable Trust, it filed an application before the Divisional Commissioner on 26.07.2012 for installation of a Statue of late Shri Kishore Mal Khimavat, who was a social worker as he planted more than Six Lacs Neem Trees. It was also stated that late Shri Kishore Mal Khimavat was awarded the following Awards : (1) Sarvo Amrita Devi (2) Vriksh Mitra (3) Vriksh Vradhak (4) Marwar Ratna (5) Dharti Putra (6) Samaj Sevi (7) Bhamashah. 5. It is also averred in the reply that the Central Government and also the State Government has recognized such kind of activities as social activities and while keeping in this view, the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur after receiving said application, has processed the said application as per guidelines set forth in a Circular issued by the Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 01.03.1997. The Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur constituted a committee of as many as 7 officers of various Departments. A meeting was held on 19.09.2011 to consider the proposal. The meeting was presided over by Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, wherein following representatives of various departments were present: 1. Sh. Bhagwati Prasad Kala - SDO, Raipur, District Pali. 2. Sh. Jugal Kishore Meena Dy. Director, Local Self Department, Jodhpur. 3. Sh. Chiranji Lal Meena Dy. SP, District Pali (Rural) 4. Sh. D.D. Bhati Executive Engineer & Technical Assistnat, Office of the Additional Chief Engineer, PWD, Jodhpur. 5. Sh. Sh. Bhagwati Prasad Kala - SDO, Raipur, District Pali. 2. Sh. Jugal Kishore Meena Dy. Director, Local Self Department, Jodhpur. 3. Sh. Chiranji Lal Meena Dy. SP, District Pali (Rural) 4. Sh. D.D. Bhati Executive Engineer & Technical Assistnat, Office of the Additional Chief Engineer, PWD, Jodhpur. 5. Sh. Pawan Kumar Kabra Assistant town Planner, Municipal Council, Jodhpur. 6. Sh. Abhay Singh Dewal Executive Officer, M.B., Falna 7. Sh. Rajendra Mathur Assistant Engineer, M.B. Falna 6. It was also submitted that Tehsildar, Bali inspected the site and prepared a demarcation report with the help of Patwari, Falna and the said demarcation report was submitted to the Sub Divisional Officer, Bali. The SDO Bali, Executive Officer, Municipal board, Falna and Sarpanch, Gram Pancha-yat, Falna were requested to get the demarcation made and identify the land for installation of the Statue. The land for installation of Statue was identified and the permission was granted to respondent No.4 to construct Chabutra to install the Statue in the identified place measuring 5 x 5 meters. The construction has already started upto the height of 4ft. Till 17.01.2013. It is also averred in the reply that Khasra No.158, wherein permission has been granted for installation of a Statue is recorded in the record as "Siway Chak" and is not a part of Nadi which is in Khasra No.157. It is also averred that identified place is far away from the road boundary and out side the permitted norms of P.W.D., which is evident from the letter written by Assistant Engineer, PWD, Bali dated 19.01.2013. The Executive Engineer, Municipal Board, Khudala, Falna has issued a Certificate dated 21.01.2013 to this effect that the land in question is situated within Municipal limits of Khudala-Falna Station. The area for installation of Statue does not fall within the catchment area. 7. Respondent No.4 filed preliminary objection-cum-reply to he stay petition on 9.1.2013. Thereafter, a reply to writ petition was filed on 16.1.2013, wherein it is mentioned that Khasra No.157 is Nadi and Khasra No.158 is Siwai Chak, as per Revenue record. A copy of Revenue record from Samwat Year 2008 to 2069 has also been placed on record along with preliminary objection-cum-reply to the stay petition. It was also stated that petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition on behalf of residents of village Falna. A copy of Revenue record from Samwat Year 2008 to 2069 has also been placed on record along with preliminary objection-cum-reply to the stay petition. It was also stated that petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition on behalf of residents of village Falna. It is also mentioned that respondent No.4 - Trust, had written a letter to Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Falna as to whether the work for setting up of Statue has caused in trouble to Gram Panchayat and whether Mr. Karan Rajpurohit, who has filed an affidavit in support of present Public Interest Litigation has been authorized on behalf of Gram Panchayat or all the residents of village in order to file the present writ petition. In response to he above letter of the respondent No.4 - Trust, the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Falna vide its letter dated 9.1.2013 informed the respondent No.4 - Trust, that the Gram Panchayat, Falna, has not authorized to Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit to file this writ petition, on behalf of the residents of village Falna. In these circumstances, it is clear that none of the residents of village had any objection in setting up of a Statute and for carrying out any construction on the site in question. 8. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a permission of installation of Statue has been granted on the piece of land, which is apart of Nadi and, therefore, the permission is void ab initio. In support of his submissions, he referred a record of settlement of the Village for the Samwat Year 2032 (corresponding year 1975 as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner) and submitted that land bearing Khasra No.158 is shown as "Gair Mumkin Pal", therefore, no allotment could have been made out of this land. Therefore, allotment letter / permission granted for installation of Statue to respondent No.4 is void ab initio and is liable to be quashed by this Court. In support of submissions, he also referred interim order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 18.01.2013 passed in SLP No.8519/2006 - Union of India vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. and submitted that State Government has been restrained from granting permission for installation of any statue or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places. 9. and submitted that State Government has been restrained from granting permission for installation of any statue or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places. 9. Shri R.L. Jangid, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that from the documents annexed with the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, it is clear that piece of land, where permission for installation of statue has been granted, is not a part of Nadi, rather it is Siway Chak land. A report was taken in this regard from Patwari, Tehsil, PWD Officers, PHED Officers etc. and they have certified that it is not a part of Nadi. He also submitted that as per Certificate dated 21.1.2013 (Annexure-R/4) issued by Executive Officer, Municipal bord, Khudala Falna, it is clear that land bearing Khasras Nos. 158 and 158/1294 and they fall within the Municipal limit of Municipality Khudala, Falna. A certificate dated 22.1.2013 (Annexure-R/5) issued by Assistant Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Bali has been filed to show that the piece of land which has been allotted for installation of Statue is not a part of Nadi. The same certificate has also been issued by Panchayat Samiti, Bali vide its letter dated 22.1.2013 (Annexure-R/6). 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has submitted that petitioner has no locus standi to file the present Public Interest Litigation in the name of residents of village Falna. He referred to a letter of Sarpanch of concerned Gram Panchayat to the effect that Gram Panchayat or its villagers / residents have not authroised Shri Karan Singh Rajpurohit, who has filed this writ petition in the name of residents of village Falna to file the present writ petition. He also submitted that villagers of village Falna have no objection in installation of Statue over the identified place, for which a permission has been granted by respondents Nos.1 to 3. he also submitted that land in dispute is not a part of Nadi. He also referred the Revenue record to show that identified land is a part of Government land (Siway Chak) and is not a part of Nadi. he also submitted that land in dispute is not a part of Nadi. He also referred the Revenue record to show that identified land is a part of Government land (Siway Chak) and is not a part of Nadi. He also submitted that a Committee consisting of 8 Members headed by Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur examined the entire matter and only thereafter the permission was granted looking to the services rendered by late Shri Kishore Mal Khimawat, who had planted more than 8 Lacs Neem Trees and was awarded number of Awards by State Government and Central Government. In support of his submissions, he referred to a judgment of this Court in Shyam Singh vs. State of Rajasthan; 2004(3) RLW 1678. 11. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. 12. The dispute raised in the present case, which requires adjudication by this Court, is as to, "whether the identified land measuring 5 x 5 meters allotted to respondent No.4 for installation of a Statue of Kishore Mal Khemawat is a part of catchment area or a Pond or a Nadi or not"? If it is so, then what is its effect? 13. There is no dispute between the parties that identified place falls in land bearing Khasra No.158. The Khasra Number of Nadi is 157. The Patwari as well as the Tehsildar have issued a certificate that identified land is not a part of Nadi and it is a part of Government land i.e. Siway Chak. The matter was examined thoroughly by a committee presided over by Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur and consisting of 7 other officers of different Departments including Tehsildar, Local Self Government, PHED, PWD etc. It was specifically mentioned that the land belonging to Nadi has been left and thereafter a permission is granted for installation of Statue. The Tehsildar, Bali vide its letter dated 07.01.2013 (Annexure-R/4/1) has informed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bali that as per Revenue record, the land bearing Khasra No.158 is Siway Chak and is not a Nadi or a Pond. A copy of comparative chart has been placed on record to show that the old Khasra No.42 is currently Khasra No.158. The respondents Nos. The Tehsildar, Bali vide its letter dated 07.01.2013 (Annexure-R/4/1) has informed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bali that as per Revenue record, the land bearing Khasra No.158 is Siway Chak and is not a Nadi or a Pond. A copy of comparative chart has been placed on record to show that the old Khasra No.42 is currently Khasra No.158. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have placed on record Khatoni for Samvat Year 2002 to 2028, much before the Samwat Year 2032, a copy of which has been placed on record by the petitioners and from this documents, it is clear that such land bearing old Khasra No.42 has been shown as "Barani Soyam". This land has not been shown as Nadi. A copy of the Jamabandi has also been placed on record with reply filed by the respondent No.4 to show that the land belonging to old Khasra No.42 is not a Nadi. A copy of Jamabandi of various years have been laced on record to show that the land bearing old Khasra No.42 and current Khasra No.158 is a Siway Chak land. 14. Similarly, respondents Nos.1 to 3 have also annexed copies of Revenue Records and other certificates/letters, issued/written by Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Exectuive Engineer, Municipal Board, Khudala, the Assistant Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, to show that identified land measuring 5 x 5 meters for installation of Statue is not a part of land of Nadi. 15. Hon'ble Apex Court vide its interim order dated 18.01.2013 passed in Union of India vs. State of Gujrat (supra) has directed that State Government shall not grant any permission for installation of any statue or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility services. The Hon'ble Apex Court further directed that obviously, this order shall not apply to installation of high mast lights, street lights or construction relating to electrification, traffic, toll or for development and beautification of the streets, highways, roads etc. and relating to public utility and facilities. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that identified place for installation of Statue is not a part of public roads, pavements and sideways. Therefore, it is not necessary to discuss the documentary evidence available on record to prove that disputed place is not a part of public road, pavements and sideways. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that identified place for installation of Statue is not a part of public roads, pavements and sideways. Therefore, it is not necessary to discuss the documentary evidence available on record to prove that disputed place is not a part of public road, pavements and sideways. However, from the documents placed on record with reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4, it is clear that land in dispute is not a public road, pavements and sideways. So far as public utility place is concerned, it is clear from the documents available on record that identified place has been allotted from Government land i.e. Siway Chak and in our opinion, cannot be said to be a part of public utility place. The only contention of petitioner is that disputed piece of land is a part of Nadi land, which is factually not correct as discussed above. 17. The State Government has issued an order dated 1st March, 1997, whereby a Committee has been constituted and a procedure has been laid down to consider such type of applications for granting permissions for installation of Statue. From the impugned proceedings, which is under challenge, it is clear that the permission has been granted in accordance with Circular dated 01st March, 1997 and in no way it violates the terms and conditions of the circular issued by the State Government on 01st March, 1997. 18. This Court had an occasion to examine such type of controversy in the case of Shyam Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), where a permission was granted for installation of Statue of late Shri Rajiv Gandhi at the subject location. This Court, after considering various aspects of the matter and the circular of the State Government, dismissed the Public Interest Litigation. Paras 4 to 7 of judgment are reproduced as under: "4. Reverting to the factual aspect it is averred that in order to solve the problem of parking at Sojati Gate, Jodhpur, a decision was taken to provide place for parking purposes and an area was demarcated by raising boundary wall having height of 1 ft. The place has been provided for entrance and exist of the vehicles. Reverting to the factual aspect it is averred that in order to solve the problem of parking at Sojati Gate, Jodhpur, a decision was taken to provide place for parking purposes and an area was demarcated by raising boundary wall having height of 1 ft. The place has been provided for entrance and exist of the vehicles. The area has been given on contract to one Atta Mohammad for a sum of Rs.90,000/- per annum. As regards the subject construction, it is submitted that on the request of the Hosing Board the matter was considered in depth and detail by the Urban Improvement Trust. On careful consideration of the entire material, the Urban Improvement Trust by its resolution conveyed its not objection for raising the installation of the statute. As per the policy decision contained in Memorandum dated 23.1.1987 a Committee is constituted for considering the question of installation of a statute at a public place. The committee is headed by the Division Commissioner and other public functionaries. In the instant case the committee headed by the Division Commission and other officers granted permission for installation of the statue of late Shri Rajiv Gandhi at the subject location. While considering all these aspects it was ensured that the directions of the High Court in Mahendra Lodha's case is not violated. In order to appreciate the controversy a Map has been placed on record showing that on eastern side of the construction under dispute there is already wall of the present Police Control Room. Not even an Inch of land earmarked has been utilized for raising construction in question, nor the way to Sulabh Complex has been obstructed. On the contrary the approach for Sulabh Com-plex has made more convenient. The additional reason for choosing the place as given in the affidavit is that late Shri Rajiv Gandhi delivered his last speech in Jodhpur and in order to pay homage and respect to the departed soul a decision was taken to install the statue of late Shri Rajiv Gandhi. The present site was selected keeping in view the prominence of the place for the view of the people at large. Certain photographs have also been placed on record which depicts that the place on record which depicts that the place earmarked for approaching the Mohanpura Bridge has not at all been affected in any manner whatsoever. The present site was selected keeping in view the prominence of the place for the view of the people at large. Certain photographs have also been placed on record which depicts that the place on record which depicts that the place earmarked for approaching the Mohanpura Bridge has not at all been affected in any manner whatsoever. It is also averred that so far as the Choraha over the Overbridge Clock Tower Scheme is concerned, at present no right turn is permissible from the Choraha and that for certain contentions raised in this regard is devoid of merit. On careful consideration of the entire material we are satisfied that in no way the orders of this Court in Mahendra Lodha's case has been flouted. 5. Without expressing any aspersion on the conduct of the petitioner, we may observe that while it is true that the citizens have turned to the courts more and more for justice whenever there has been a legitimate grievance against the State, statutory authorities and other public organizations, unfortunately with the passage of time, things started taking different shapes inasmuch as the process has been often misused. The proceedings are being initiated in the name of public interest litigation for ventilating private disputes. Some time the political advantages are also taken. Mostly, they are publicity oriented. Thus, recently the Apex Court in Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee and Anr. vs. C.K. Rajan and Ors. MANU/SC/0582/2003 has given caution to the courts as follows:- "A balance was, therefore, required to be struck. The courts started exercising greater care and caution in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction of public interest litigation." 6. In Narmada Bachao Andolan's case (supra) the Apex Court has given a caution to the courts as follows: "But the balloon should not be inflated so much that it bursts. Public Interest Litigation should not be allowed to degenerate to becoming publicity interest litigation or private inquisitiveness litigation." 7. In Narmada Bachao Andolan's case (supra) the Apex Court has given a caution to the courts as follows: "But the balloon should not be inflated so much that it bursts. Public Interest Litigation should not be allowed to degenerate to becoming publicity interest litigation or private inquisitiveness litigation." 7. Thus, we conclude this order with the observation that while we are aware that people come to the court as a final resort to protect he rights and to secure privity in the public life, as such the courts exercising power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India are consti-tutionally bound to entertain a petition filed by an interested person in the welfare of the people but it needs a caution that balloon of the public interest litigation should not be inflated so much that it burst." 19. Hon'ble Apex Court in its interim order dated 18.12013 (supra) has specifically directed the State Govt. not to grant any permission for installation of any Statue or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places. After considering submissions of parties and examining the various documents filed by parties, we are satisfied that identified piece of land in dispute measuring 5 x 5 meters is in no way a part of public road, pavements and side ways and public utility place and in no way it is a part of catchment area or a pond or a nadi. In these circum-stances, we find no fault in the impugned order/proceedings of the Meeting dated 19.9.2012. Hence, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 20. It is needless to mention that respondent No.4 will not raise construction beyond 5 x 5 meters (which is said to be identified or demarcated land, as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties). If any action of the respondent No.4 is found to be contrary to it, then, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 will initiate necessary action against the respondent No.4 including demolition / removal of that exceed part of land, in accordance with law.