Dismissed

Bhanwar Lal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Sept 2018CW/4158/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the construction of a drainage chamber abutting National Highway-6. The court held that prohibitions under Indian Road Congress Rules apply to structures above the plinth level, not below, and deemed the chamber necessary for draining accumulated water due to road topology.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; the construction of the drainage chamber by the Municipal Board is upheld.

Bhanwar Lal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and… — Municipal and Town Planning | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ No. 4158/2018

¶3

Bhanwarlal S/o Shri Gulab Chand, By Caste Seny-Mali, aged about 52 years, Resident Of Ward No. 17, Tantinyo Ka Kuaa, Sardarshahar, District Churu (Raj.).

¶4

Gulab Singh S/o Shri Tol Singh, By Caste Rajput, aged about 59 years, Resident Of Ghinaniwas, Near Shivbari, Sardarshahar, District Churu (Raj.).

¶5

Shravan Kumar S/o Sh. Sedram Regar, By Caste Regar, aged about 48 years, Resident Of Regar Basti, Near Choudhary Well, Sardarshahar, District Churu (Raj.).

¶6

Ganesh S/o Sh. Shiv Bhagwan, By Caste Prajapat, aged about 38 years, Resident Of 135, Resident Of Ghinani Basti, Sardarshahar, District Churu (Raj.).

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Local Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶10

The Director, Local Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶11

The District Collector, Churu (Raj.)

¶12

The Municipal Board, Sardarshahar Through Its Executive Officer, Sardarshahar, District Churu (Raj.).

¶13

The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Tal Maidan, Sardarshahar, District Churu (Raj.)

¶14

The Executive Engineer, (Projects), Public Health & Engineering Department, Churu (Raj.).

¶15

The Secretary, Pollution Control Board, Shiv-Singhpura Housing Board Colony, Mugalgarh Road, Sikar (Raj.).

¶16

M/s Balaji Builders, Churu (Raj.).

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Salil Trivedi For Respondent(s) : Dr.Pratisstha Dave Mr.Manish Shishodia Ms.Geeta Shrimali

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CW-4158/2018]

¶21

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶22

Order

¶23

06/09/2018

¶24

The petitioners claim to espouse a public interest. Grievance is to the Municipal Board, Sardarshahar constructing a sewerage chamber having depth of 15 ft. and dimensions 15 ft.x20 ft. abutting State Highway-6 which connects Delhi to Bikaner. The exact spot where the chamber is being proposed to be constructed is shown in the photographs. It is abutting the National Highway as it passes through the City and unfortunately with reference to at what kilometer of the road the same is being erected has not come out in the pleadings.

¶25

The petitioners are relying on the legal position that as per Indian Road Congress Rules no construction is permissible along the line of control of the road i.e. from the centre of the road on either side no construction is permissible within 75 meters thereof. 3. The reply filed by the Municipal Board brings out that the construction is of a drainage chamber for the reason, the natural slope of the highway passing from the point where the drainage chamber is being constructed is such that water flows along the slope and gets accumulated at the lowest point of the road and thus to prevent damage to the road and also for the water to be drained the drainage chamber is being erected.

¶26

The photographs show that the top of the drainage chamber is about a foot above the plinth of the road. 5. In our opinion, constructions prohibited under the Indian Road Congress Rules are those which are above the plinth level and not below the plinth level.

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[CW-4158/2018]

¶29

We have another reason to dismiss the writ petition. Due to topology of the area the road is concaved as it passes by the place where the drainage chamber is being erected. Water accumulates. The drainage chamber facilitates the removal of the water and needless to state the drainage chamber has to be at the place where water accumulates.

¶30

The petition is dismissed.

¶31

(PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶32

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ

¶33

Parmar

Bhanwar Lal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanwar Lal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj.Council of Elementary Edu. and Anr. Vs Alpesh Gangawat and Ors.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan and Ors. Vs Keshav Dev Sharma and Anr.

Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam, Ltd. Andanr Vs Smt. Maya Saini

Akshay Kumar Sanghi and Anr. Vs Ratan Kumar Sanghi and Ors.

Sahdev Gujrati Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

The Union of India and Ors. Vs Mujjaffar Hussain Shaikh