Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1249 (RAJ)

RAMESHWAR v. STATE of RAJASTHAN

2025-05-06

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2025
ORDER : 1. The present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition has been filed by Rameshwar, Sanwar Mal, Vijendra Lakhan and Prem Chand claiming that they are espousing the public cause, that is, to protect the lives and properties of the inhabitants and residents of civil area situated at downfall in foothills ( rygVh ) of Kuchaman Hill, which is a mountain of Kuchaman City of District Nagaur, on which the old fort named as ‘Kuchaman Fort’ is situated. 2. The petitioners have stated in the PIL petition that respondent No.8 - Shri Maa Anandmayi Kuchaman Kila Trust (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trust’) obtained a permission from the respondent – Municipal Council, Kuchaman City to erect fencing with pillars around the bottom of the hill. But in garb of the said permission, respondent No.8 started raising boundary wall around the hill with a view to lock the entire Kuchaman Hill and has, even undertaken the process for construction of a water dam/embankment on one side of the hill. It is further pleaded that the said illegal construction of boundary wall and the water dam has resulted into encroachment over the public land and as a result thereof, there is complete restraint of passage of the local residents to Kuchaman Hill. Moreover, the construction of water dam would be a danger to lives and properties of the local residents. 3. With the above pleadings, the following reliefs have been prayed for : “(A) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent Municipal Authorities, Kuchaman City (Nagaur) or other public authorities of the State, may kindly be directed (i) to protect the kuchaman hill, from being grabbed by respondent private trust “Shri Maa Anandmayi Kuchaman Trust, Kuchaman Killa” or any successors of former king of Kuchaman, (ii) to restrain respondent trust, from encroaching the public land of hills, for raising any kind of construction, (iii) to restrain respondent trust, from locking the entire hills by raising any kind of construction of boundary wall, around hills, (iv) not to disturb passage of public to kuchaman hills. (B) By any appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the respondent Municipal Authorities of Kuchaman City, may kindly be directed to take suitable action in the matter and not to permit anyone to raise any kind of construction or to raise any boundary wall, at the bottom on the downfall (talhati) of kuchaman hill and any construction raised by respondent trust, may kindly be ordered to be removed on the cost and expenditure of respondent trust, to restore original look of kuchaman hill. (C) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the residents of Mirdha Nagar Colony and other adjacent residential areas of kuchaman hill, may kindly be allowed to use public way, situated at bottom talhati of Kuchaman Hill, to reach their destinations and not to restrict anyone to visit top area of kuchaman hill. (D) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature thereof, the respondents state public authorities, responsible for construction of public way, may kindly be directed; to construct pukka road (public way) on existing public way, for public at talhati of kuchaman hill and public rainy nala, blocked by respondent Trust, so as to serve public cause for public interest. (E) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may kindly be directed; to restore heritage look of kuchaman fort and to preserve it, for public view, and to remove the boundary wall raised by respondent trust and, to demolish water-dam constructed on hill, pillars and fencing, erected by respondent trust, which may kindly be ordered to be removed at the cost to be born by respondent trust. (F) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the local residents, residing in talhati of kuchaman hill, who have suffered losses in flow of water supply, due to breakage of water pipelines, and who have suffered damages to their house, due to damage to boundary wall being erected by respondent trust, be paid compensation, to be recovered from respondent-trust, by appointing a committee and action taken on report of committee, be placed before this Hon’ble High Court, for further suitable orders. (G) or to pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction, in favour of petitioner on the said issue.” 4. A reply to the PIL petition has been filed on behalf of all the respondents namely, the State, the Municipality and respondent No.8-the Trust. 5. (G) or to pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction, in favour of petitioner on the said issue.” 4. A reply to the PIL petition has been filed on behalf of all the respondents namely, the State, the Municipality and respondent No.8-the Trust. 5. In the replies submitted by the respondent Municipality as well as the Trust, it has specifically been pleaded that a civil suit qua the same dispute as raised in the present PIL petition, is already pending adjudication before a Civil Court. 6. It has been pleaded on behalf of the Trust that when obstructions were raised by the local residents including the present petitioners, in construction of the boundary wall by the Trust, a civil suit for injunction was filed by it. In the said suit, present petitioner No.4 namely, Prem Chand has been impleaded as defendant No.8. Meaning thereby, the petitioners are very well aware of pendency of the said suit. The fact of said pending suit has been concealed in the present PIL petition and hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. 7. It has further been submitted on behalf of the Trust that in the said suit, a counter-claim has been filed on behalf of the defendants therein and vide the said counter claim all the reliefs which have been prayed for in the present PIL petition have already been prayed for. Therefore, the issues which are already pending consideration before a Civil Court could not have been agitated by way of a PIL petition and this Court cannot entertain the present PIL petition for the same cause and the same reliefs. 8. Responding to the above submission, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the fact of the pendency of the suit has not been concealed and a specific pleading qua the same has been made in Para No.4.16 of the petition. Further, even the copies of the plaint, written statement and the counter-claim have been annexed with the petition. Learned counsel submits that it is the larger public cause for which the present PIL petition has been filed. 9. Heard the counsels. Perused the record. 10. Further, even the copies of the plaint, written statement and the counter-claim have been annexed with the petition. Learned counsel submits that it is the larger public cause for which the present PIL petition has been filed. 9. Heard the counsels. Perused the record. 10. Without going into other issues, we are of the clear opinion that the reliefs as prayed for in the present PIL petition are also prayed for by the defendants (including present petitioner No.4) in the civil suit as filed on behalf of respondent No.8 - Trust. It is also an admitted position that the civil suit which is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court was filed prior to the filing of the present PIL petition. 11. Herein is a dispute which is already pending adjudication before a competent Civil Court. Dealing with an identical situation, the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.R. Narahari Rao Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.; (2012) 12 SCC 451 held such PIL petition to be misconceived while observing as under:- “1. This appeal is representative of the large number of cases which are filed in the Courts across the country and which consume valuable time of the Courts without any tangible justification. The very fact that the Division Bench of the High Court devoted time to record an order running into 56 typed sheets and also the fact that this Court has devoted many hours including two hours hearing of today indicates how a purely civil and private litigation, camouflaged as a public interest litigation, puts unnecessary burden on the Courts and results in wastage of time which could otherwise be devoted for those who are waiting for years together with the hope that some day they will get an opportunity of hearing. This case is also illustrative of how a litigant pursues two remedies simultaneously and takes chance of getting favorable result from one or the other judicial forum.” 12. The prayers as made by the defendants by way of a counter claim, in the suit proceedings read as under : 13. English translation of the above prayers as made by the defendants by way of a counter claim is as follows : “34. That the defendants pray as under : 1. The prayers as made by the defendants by way of a counter claim, in the suit proceedings read as under : 13. English translation of the above prayers as made by the defendants by way of a counter claim is as follows : “34. That the defendants pray as under : 1. That it be declared that except the properties of the plaintiffs under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Jagir Abolition Act, all the other portion of complete hills, foot hills and Haathi Teeba are not the properties of the ownership of the plaintiff. 2. That the plaintiff be restrained by permanent injunction from encroaching upon the land of hills, foot hills and Haathi Teeba situated in Kuchaman City against the orders of the Jagir Commissioner and from raising any illegal construction of permanent wall, embankment, building, roads etc. himself or through any of his agents, representatives, assignees or beneficiaries. A mandatory decree be issued for a direction to the plaintiff to dismantle all sorts of constructions as raised and to restore the said lands to their status as it was on 26.01.1950, on his own costs. 3. That the plaintiff be restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from interfering with the user of the public cremation ground situated in the western direction of the disputed hill in Kuchaman City, near Dungari Wale Balaji, bearing Khasra Nos. 914 and 2457/916, and by a decree of mandatory injunction be directed to remove the unlawfully constructed permanent wall erected by him upon the land of the public cremation ground. 4. That the plaintiff be restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from raising obstructions or barriers in public access through the western side of the disputed hill via Dungari Wale Balaji and the cremation ground toward Tagore School, and that a mandatory injunction be issued directing the plaintiff to demolish the illegally constructed wall and the obstructions as aforesaid. 5. That the plaintiff be restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from creating any such nuisance or disturbance after 9:00 PM which amounts to public nuisance and can disrupt the peace, comfort and healthy living of general public of Kuchaman City and that the plaintiff be bound by a perpetual decree to restrain from creating any public nuisance. 6. 5. That the plaintiff be restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from creating any such nuisance or disturbance after 9:00 PM which amounts to public nuisance and can disrupt the peace, comfort and healthy living of general public of Kuchaman City and that the plaintiff be bound by a perpetual decree to restrain from creating any public nuisance. 6. That the plaintiff be restrained by an appropriate order from causing any public nuisance which might damage the environment and ecology of the disputed hill, its foothill and Hathi Teeba situated in Kuchaman City, and further be prohibited from altering the natural structure of the hill/foothill in any manner which may harm the environment of the area or cause injury/loss to the life and body of the defendants; and that the plaintiff be directed to stop the unauthorized construction of the embankment. 7. That any other relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff, be also granted. 8. That cost and expenses incurred on counter claim be awarded to the defendants from the plaintiff.” 14. A bare perusal of the counter claim in the suit and the prayers as made in the present PIL petition clearly reveal that they pertain to the same subject matter and issues. The reliefs as prayed for in the suit by the defendants by way of a counter-claim definitely are, in substance, the same as those prayed for in the present PIL petition. The same definitely cannot fall within the parameters of a ‘Public Interest Litigation’. As is the settled position of law, when an interest of a litigant can be protected and the controversy or the dispute can be adjudicated by a mechanism created under a particular statute, the parties should be relegated to the appropriate forum, instead of entertaining the writ petition filed as Public Interest Litigation. 15. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to entertain the present PIL petition for the same reliefs, qua which a civil suit is already pending adjudication before a competent Civil Court. It is also not disputed that petitioner No.4 in the present PIL is a party to the suit proceedings. 15. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to entertain the present PIL petition for the same reliefs, qua which a civil suit is already pending adjudication before a competent Civil Court. It is also not disputed that petitioner No.4 in the present PIL is a party to the suit proceedings. If the other petitioners also deem it essential to espouse the cause, they can also definitely move an application for impleadment in the suit proceedings but they cannot in any manner espouse the same cause by way of a PIL petition before this Court. Further, if the petitioners allege to espouse a public cause, they definitely have a remedy of civil suit in a representative capacity to be filed before a competent Civil Court as evidently, issues raised in the present petition involve all the disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court in a PIL petition. The disputed questions as to the ownership of the land in question, entitlement of the parties thereof, whether a construction permission could have been granted by the Municipality, whether the alleged construction raised/being raised by the respondent Trust is in consonance with the permission granted or not etc. are disputed questions of fact, which by any means, cannot be adjudicated in a PIL petition. 16. For the above reasons, we do not find any plausible ground to entertain the present PIL petition. The same is hence, disposed of however, with a liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate application for impleadment in the pending suit if they so desire or to file a fresh suit in accordance with law. 17. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.