Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1496 (RAJ)

Om Prakash Bhadu v. State Government

2014-08-28

SUNIL AMBWANI, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - We have heard the petitioner No.1 appearing in person. 2. In this public interest litigation, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- (i) The PIL Application may kindly be allowed and; (ii) That an appropriate writ, direction and order may be issued against the respondents to act upon the recommendation of Public Grievances Redressal Committee vide annexure-5 dated 8.12.2010 and ensure access from Ganganagar-Hanumangarh Road to Ganganagar-Suratgarh Road (National Highway 15) through inter-connecting road in front of Jagdamba Andh Vidhyalaya Sri Ganganagar as finding mention in proposed master plan of 2001 and approved plan of 2004 deeming the sale deeds dated 27.3.2001 and 03.06.2006 vide annexures -12 & 13 with respect to the disputed area of Shankar Colony i.e. the interconnecting road in front of Jagdamba Andh Vidhyalaya Hanumangarh Road, Sri Ganganagar to UIT Road and NH-15 to be nonest in the eyes of law and to straighten road in front of Jagdamba Andh Vidhyalaya to UIT and Suratgarh road by clearing the obstructions. (iii) An appropriate writ, direction and order may be issued against the respondents and respondents may be directed to remove the unauthorized construction on the road in square no.40 of chak 6-E Chotti, Sri Ganganagar (presently a part of Shankar Colony, Sri Ganganagar) made by respondent No.5 & 6 in pursuance of the void sale deed dated 27.3.2001 made by Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, Secretary Adarsh Grah Nirman Samiti, Sri Ganganagar. (iv) Cost of litigation may be awarded to the petitioner. (v) Any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted in favour of the petitioner." 3. The notices were issued, in response to which, the respondents have filed their reply. The Urban Improvement Trust, Sri Ganganagar, in its reply, has submitted that a cooperative society for the development of housing was constituted in the name of Adarsh Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti. The Samiti purchased agricultural land in chak No.6-E Chhoti, Sri Ganganagar comprising in Murabba No.40 measuring 23 bighas and 10 biswas by a registered sale deed on 18.6.1979 from original khatedars. Since the Samiti was substituted as khatedar tenant, in order to specify its object, the Samiti made different persons as its member including Shri Radha Krishana. Radha Krishana was allotted plot No.1 of Shanker Colony Scheme No.3 through proposal No.4 of the Samiti. Since the Samiti was substituted as khatedar tenant, in order to specify its object, the Samiti made different persons as its member including Shri Radha Krishana. Radha Krishana was allotted plot No.1 of Shanker Colony Scheme No.3 through proposal No.4 of the Samiti. The Samiti issued a patta in favour of Radha Krishana. After allotment and getting possession, Radha Krishna raised construction on the said plot and obtained water and electricity connections and has started consumption of water and electricity for which the bills were issued in the name of Radha Krishana. 4. The petitioners and other residents of the Samiti made complaint of the alleged unauthorised construction and encroachments to UIT, Sri Gananagar. The UIT, Sri Ganganagar vide its order dated 10.5.2002 decided the matter in favour of respondent No.5 and discharged the notices. The authorised officer of the UIT had thereafter issued a notice under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act to original khatedars. This case was decided by the authority vide its order dated 11.9.2000. 5. It is further stated in the reply given by the respondents that a survey was conducted on the land in question. A revised layout plan was prepared on 16.8.2002 showing the actual ground conditions on the land including constructed and un-constructed land. The layout plan was approved by the Senior Town Planner, Bikaner on 23.8.2004. Shri Radha Krishana sold his plot No.1 to respondent No.6 by a registered sale deed and since thereafter the respondent No.6 is in possession of the property. 6. The UIT, in its reply, has submitted that the writ petitioners are seeking directions to remove the encroachments from the road passing through their colony. The record submitted by the petitioners does not make it clear as to when the respondent No.6, who is the purchaser of the plot by way of registered sale deed executed in her favour acquired knowledge of the sale deed. The petitioners' complaint, inter alia, became null and void as it is the prerogative of the civil court. 7. The record submitted by the petitioners does not make it clear as to when the respondent No.6, who is the purchaser of the plot by way of registered sale deed executed in her favour acquired knowledge of the sale deed. The petitioners' complaint, inter alia, became null and void as it is the prerogative of the civil court. 7. In the letter dated 9.2.2009 sent by Secretary, UIT, Sri Ganganagar to the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, on a complaint made by the residents informed the Collector that the constructions which have been alleged to close the road is actually the land belonging to Adarsh Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti, which has sold the land on which STP, Bikaner has sanctioned layout plan of the plot. The water channel shown in the land for irrigation is not being used and that this matter has already been disposed of by the Land Acquisition Officer of the UIT, Sri Ganganagar on 10.5.2002 of which the original copy is not available on record and the photo copy has been sent. 8. From the reply given by the respondents, against which no positive material has been produced, we find that the allegations with regard to the illegal constructions are baseless. The water channel 'Khala' is not in use. The allegation that there is a 'khala' and road, which have been obstructed is not substantiated inasmuch as the layout plan submitted by the cooperative society was approved and in which the said plot was shown as it was allotted and thereafter sold to the private respondent. 9. We find that the petitioners have filed this writ petition to serve a private cause. For cancellation of allotment made by the Society in favour of private respondent, the petitioners may file regular suit in the court of competent jurisdiction. 10. There is no proof or material with regard to the obstruction of water channel or road, nor we are satisfied that the reliefs have been claimed in public interest. 11. The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******