Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1201 (RAJ)

Gram Panchayat Sohangarh v. State of Rajasthan

2021-07-23

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner - Gram Panchayat through its Sarpanch challenging the validity of the order dated 26.06.2021 (Annexure-15) passed by the District Collector, Rajsamand, whereby the District Collector, Rajsamand has directed the Sub Divisional Officer, Deogarh to allot land for the purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan of Gram Panchayat, Sohangarh at Araji No.369 of Village Sirodhaniya, District Rajsamand instead of Araji No.466 of Village Sirola. It is further prayed that the respondents may be directed to construct the Gram Panchayat Bhawan in Gram Panchayat, Sohangarh at Khasra No.466 of Village Sirola. 2. As per the averments made in this writ petition, the Sub Divisional Officer, Deogarh, District Rajsmand vide Order dated 11.08.2020 (Annexure-6) allotted the land of Khasra No. 466 of Village Sirola for the purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan of Gram Panchayat Sohangarh. It is claimed by the petitioner that the said land was allotted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Devgarh as per the resolution of Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat, Sohangarh. It is also claimed that the land of Araji No. 466 of Village Sirola is most suitable land for the purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan of Gram Panchayat Sohangarh. 3. It appears that some complaints were filed by some of the Ward Panchas and other villagers objecting the allotment of land of Araji No. 466 of Gram Panchayat of Village Sirola for the purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan of Gram Panchayat Sohangarh and taking cognizance of said complaints, the District Collector, Rajsamand had invited objections from interested persons and thereafter provided opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons. The District Collector after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned including Sarpanch of the petitioner Gram Panchayat, has passed the impugned order dated 26.06.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the District Collector has grossly erred in passing the impugned order dated 26.06.2021. It is further submitted the land of Araji No. 466 of Village, Sirola is the most suitable land for the construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan of Gram Panchayat, Sohangarh. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the District Collector has grossly erred in passing the impugned order dated 26.06.2021. It is further submitted the land of Araji No. 466 of Village, Sirola is the most suitable land for the construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan of Gram Panchayat, Sohangarh. It is also submitted that the persons, who objected for the allotment of the land of Araji No. 466 of Gram Panchayat, Sirola were signatory to the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat, Sohangarh recommending allotment of the land of Araji No. 466 of Village Sirola. It is argued that once those persons have agreed for the allotment of the land at Village Sirola, then at a later stage, they have no locus to challenge the allotment on any of the grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that administrative, technical and financial sanction for the purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan of Gram Panchayat Sohangarh has already been issued for the land of Araji No. 466 of Village Sirola, then, at this stage, the action of the District Collector, Rajsamand for cancelling the allotment of the land of Araji No. 466 of Village Sirola is absolutely illegal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the respondents be directed to construct the Panchanyat Bhawan at Araji No. 466 of Village Sirola. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 7. The District Collector after receiving complaints/ objections from the villagers including some ward panchas had convened a meeting to take a decision on the said objections. In the said meeting, the petitioner-Sarpanch took part and the District Collector after taking note of the fact that the land of Gram Panchayat, Village Sirola allotted for the purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan of Gram Panchayat, Sohangarh is far from the headquarters and the land of Village Sirodhaniya is near to the Panchayat Headquarters and after obtaining report from the Sub Divisional Officer as well as Vikas Adhikari and Patwari of the area concerned has decided that the land of Araji No. 369 of Village Sirodhaniya is the most suitable for the purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan of Gram Panchayat, Sohangarh. 8. 8. It is settled law that the matter regarding construction of building of public utility is the domain of the Government and its functionaries and until and unless it is demonstrated that there is flagrant violation of any provision of law/rules in the action of authorities or it suffer from malafides, no interference is permissible in such administrative matters while exercising powers of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.R. Raghupathy Vs. State of A. P. reported in (1988) 4 SCC 364 has observed as under:- "31. We find it rather difficult to sustain the judgment of the High Court in some of the cases where it has interfered with the location of Mandal Headquarters and quashed the impugned notifications on the ground that the Government acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place would promote general public convenience, or that the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the area surrounded by it. The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under subsection (5) of Section 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like the Gram Panchayats and the general public. Even assuming that the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters should be at place "X" rather than place "Y" as recommended by the Collector concerned in a particular case, the High Court would not have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners". 10. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 11. Stay petition also stands dismissed.