Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1584 (RAJ)

Hardeep Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-05-16

MADAN GOPAL VYAS, MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard on application filed by the respondent-State for vacating the interim order passed by this Court. 2. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State would argue that in the present case, as the use of the land is being converted from one public purpose to other public purpose, no public interest is involved in this petition and only on this ground, the petition is liable to be dismissed. He would next submit that as far as original allotment of 14 hectares of land in the year 1978 at Rajgarh is concerned, at that time, in the peculiar facts and background as stated in the reply, wherein it was proposed to raise All India Institute of Medical Sciences, that huge land was proposed. However later on, AIIMS. could not be established and the donor expressed willingness to surrender his private hospital with a request to the State Government to run the same. Therefore, the State acquired the hospital and a Community Health Center was established, for which there is no requirement of huge piece of land. Referring to the averments made in the reply, it has been submitted that as per the standard norms relating to establishment of Community Health Center, which is not the District Hospital, smaller piece of land is sufficient for present and future needs. Total land available for hospital is 2.21 hectares, out of which construction has been raised on 0.52 hectares of land and with all future extension possibilities, additional piece of land admeasuring 1.69 hectares is still available and vacant. Out of the aforesaid vacant land, 788.5 sq. meter has been identified for construction of trauma center. Thus, not only the hospital and CHC is operational with sufficient land and space available but for construction of trauma center also sufficient land is available and in addition to that there is availability of land, in case any future extension is necessary. 3. It is next submitted that as far as alteration of use of land is concerned, it was the State Government which had passed the order for allotment of 12 hectares of land for construction of sports stadium vide order dated 21.09.2020 and it was only in compliance of this order that the Collector has passed the order. 3. It is next submitted that as far as alteration of use of land is concerned, it was the State Government which had passed the order for allotment of 12 hectares of land for construction of sports stadium vide order dated 21.09.2020 and it was only in compliance of this order that the Collector has passed the order. It is not that without jurisdiction and without authority of the State Government, the Collector on his own has passed the impugned order dated 13.10.2020 in excess of his powers and jurisdiction available under the Condition for (Allotment of Unoccupied Govt. Agricultural Lands for the Construction of Schools, Colleges, Dispensaries, Dharmshalas & Other Buildings of Public Utility) 1963 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Condition of 1963'). It is brought to the notice of the Court that the order of the Collector is in compliance of the order of the State Government, and also the same has been clearly mentioned in the order. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed. 4. Lastly, it is submitted that the order passed by the District Collector itself was subject to the condition of obtaining NOC. The land use has been diverted vide order dated 28.02.2022, which is not under challenge in the present petition. In support of his submissions, learned Advocate General placed reliance upon the decisions in the cases of State of Jharkhand and Ors. v. Pakur Jagran Manch and Ors. [ (2011) 2 SCC 591 ], Rajasthan Polo Club v. State of Rajasthan and 7 Ors. [WLC Raj. 2002 (1)], Janhit Manch and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [ (2019) 2 SCC 505 ]. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the interim order was passed by this Court by taking into consideration that an attempt is being made to divert the land reserved for hospital. He would argue that once the land has already been set apart by the Collector for the purpose of hospital, it was not permissible to allot the land as unoccupied Government agricultural land for any other purpose under the Condition of 1963 because the land once set apart the same could not be allotted as unoccupied Government agricultural land for other purpose without cancelling/setting aside the order of setting apart. He would next submit that the land could not be allotted by the Collector for the purpose of construction of sports stadium because Clause 2 of the Conditions of 1963 does not include sports as one of the activities for allotment of land. Further submission is that in any case, allotment beyond the area specified therein, was not at all permissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further argue that even if it is held that the order was passed by the State Government in exercise of the powers under Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, the same is against the public interest because sports activities could not be given precedence over the health facilities and if the land reserved for hospital is diverted, it may adversely affect extension of health facilities in future, as the land would be no longer available. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also highlighted that the conversion of the land use from hospital to sports activities is only subsequent to the passing of the order by the State Government and the Collector, therefore, on the basis of subsequent order of land conversion, allotment could not be justified in law. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records and documents, we find that the challenge to allotment has been made primarily on two grounds. 8. Firstly, the challenge is based on the allegation that it is against public interest. In the present case, it is not that the Government land is being allotted in the hands of any private person and that too in violation of law. In the case of Rajasthan Polo Club (supra), taking into consideration that the change of the land was for one public purpose to other public purpose, it was said that the Court cannot go into the competitive utility of the public purpose and once the Court is satisfied that the acquisition is for public purpose, no fault can be found with the proceedings on the ground that the land has already been used for some beneficial purpose. Referring to the earlier judgment, it has also been stated that there is no principle of law by which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided because the authority diverted it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the provisions relating to diversion. Referring to the earlier judgment, it has also been stated that there is no principle of law by which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided because the authority diverted it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the provisions relating to diversion. In sum and substance, diversion of land resulting in change from one public purpose to other public purpose by itself would not be an issue of public interest and it is for the authorities to decide where the land is required. 9. Other ground with regard to diversion of land reserved for hospital to that for construction of sports stadium is concerned, we find that the background in which the huge chunk of 14 hectares of land was reserved for hospital purpose was that a public spirited person entered into an agreement with the State Government claiming that for facilitating successful implementation of health care delivery it would be undertaken by AIIMS, New Delhi, agreed to construct and donate a hospital in Churu town which was to be a 23 bedded hospital. In the agreement, it was mentioned that AIIMS, New Delhi had undertaken to run the hospital pursuant to the agreement dated 13.12.1977. The public spirited person constructed a hospital covering the land of 0.52 hectares. However, the hospital did not meet the requirements of AIIMS. AIIMS. did not take over and run the hospital as a result of which, the building remained without use for long time and ultimately the public spirited person approached the Government for running the hospital. It was in this background that the already constructed hospital was converted into Community Health Center after it was taken over by the Government. 10. We further find that out of total land, 0.52 hectares was used for construction of hospital building of Community Health Center which is comparatively a smaller health unit and is not comparable to District Hospital or hospital of State level. The total land covered for hospital building and future extension for allied activities is 2.21 hectares, out of which, even now, 1.69 hectares of land is available, a part of which can very well be used for construction of trauma center. There is nothing in the petition to show that even for future purposes, there will be requirement of larger chunk of land. There is nothing in the petition to show that even for future purposes, there will be requirement of larger chunk of land. In fact even for construction of Community Health Center, availability of 2.21 hectares of land is sufficient. Remaining 12 hectares of land has been stated to be lying idle out without any use. In this background, the decision of the Government to allow construction of sports stadium by converting use of the barren land of 12 hectare, does not seem to be against public purpose. 11. As far as challenge to the correctness and validity of order of the Collector dated 13.10.2020 is concerned, we find that it is not a case where the Collector, on his own, exceeding his powers conferred under the relevant rules, has passed the order in respect of certain land which could not be said to be unoccupied Government agricultural land beyond the limits prescribed under the conditions and for the purposes other than those stated in the statutory conditions. It is the State Government which has passed the order on 21.09.2020 allotting 12 hectares of land for construction of sports stadium at Rajgarh. This power is traceable to provisions contained in Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. This provision has overriding affect. Therefore, on prima facie consideration, the power of the State Government under Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act is not circumscribed by the rules and the statutory conditions referred above. We also find that the order of the Collector was subject to prior NOC from various departments and later on, the land use has also been converted by the State Government in exercise of its powers under the law, which is not under challenge. 12. In view of above prima facie consideration of the materials on record, we are not inclined to continue the interim order which was earlier passed by this Court. The application for vacating the interim order is allowed and the interim order passed by this Court is vacated. 13. As the pleadings are complete, list this matter for final hearing in the month of August, 2022.