Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1450 (RAJ)

Swaroopa Ram v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-08-11

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: 2. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition, call for the record and :- i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 20.04.2021 (Annex-10) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Shiv may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be restrained to raise further construction at the said proposed land i.e. Khasra No. 336 for construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan and status quo in this regard, may kindly be ordered to be maintained. iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to build the Panchayat Bhawan at Khasra no. 376/239 which was eariler allotted vide order dated 02.09.2020 for the construction of Panchayat Bhawan. iv) Without prejudice from above prayer, by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed that a lot the new land nearest and suitable place of the all villages of the Gram Panchayat, Laxmipura. v) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. vi) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier, the land of Khasra No.376/239 was earmarked for the purpose of construction of Panchayat Bhawan, however later on, the Gram Panchayat Laxmipur, Panchayat Samiti Shiv had passed a resolution and requested the authorities concerned to allot land of Khasra No.336 for the purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan and the authorities concerned, considering the request of the Gram Panchayat, had allotted 2.10 bighas of Khasra No.336 for the construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan, where the Gram Panchayat is now raising construction. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land of Khasra No.336 is not appropriate for the purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan, whereas land of Khasra No.376/239 is the most appropriate land for the said construction. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land of Khasra No.336 is not appropriate for the purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan, whereas land of Khasra No.376/239 is the most appropriate land for the said construction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the authorities concerned without taking into consideration the above fact has illegally allotted 2.10 bighas of land of Khasra No.336, hence, the said allotment is liable to be cancelled. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material on record. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.R. Raghupathy v. 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". 7. In this case, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any malafide on the part of the respondents and has also failed to demonstrate violation of any law in the said allotment for the purpose of construction of Panchayat Bhawan. 8. 7. In this case, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any malafide on the part of the respondents and has also failed to demonstrate violation of any law in the said allotment for the purpose of construction of Panchayat Bhawan. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 9. Stay petition also stands dismissed.