A D.B. Writ Petition challenging the allotment of government land for an Up-Tehsil office. The Bench held that administrative decisions on public utility land are immune from judicial review absent proof of violation of law or malafides, and dismissed the petition.
Petition dismissed; Stay petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:2113-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 356/2024
Jaikishan S/o Bhagwan Das, Aged About 79 Years, Resident Of Near Bus Stand, Shri Balaji, Nagaur, District Nagaur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kan Singh Oad
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Judgment / Order
15/01/2024
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner in the nature of Public Interest Litigation with a prayer that the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagaur, whereby he has allotted 0.3252 hectare of land of Khasra No.1387/1324 of village Shri Balaji for the purpose of construction of office of UpTehsil, Shri Balaji, while exercising powers under the Rules of Rajasthan Land Revenue Condition for (Allotment of Unoccupied Government Agricultural Lands for the Construction of Schools, Colleges, Dispensaries, Dharamshalas and other building of Public Utility) Rules, 1963 (for short ‘the Rules of 1963’) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
[2024:RJ-JD:2113-DB]
[CW-356/2024]
(2 of 3)
It is also prayed that the respondents may be directed to construct the office of Up-Tehsil either on the Government land of Khasra No.1179/855, 182/855 or alternatively on the land of Khasra No.1057/653 owned by the private persons. Certain other ancillary reliefs have also been prayed.
Learned counsel of the petitioner has submitted that the land allotted by the Sub-divisional Officer, Nagaur vide order dated 06.12.2023 is not suitable for the purpose of construction of office of Up-Tehsil, Shri Balaji as it is far from the village. It is also submitted that the other lands suggested by the petitioner are more appropriate for the purpose of construction of building of UpTehsil, Shri Balaji.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the inspection report prepared by the Tehsildar, RI and Patwari concerned of the area. In the said report, it is clearly mentioned that the land of Khasra No.1387/1324 measuring about 0.3252 hectare is more appropriate land for the purpose of construction of building of Up-Tehsil, Shri Balaji.
It is settled law that the allotment of land for the purpose of construction of building of the 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 under which the allotment has been made or the same suffers from malafides, no interference is permissible in such administrative decision while exercising powers of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.R. Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P. reported in (1988) 4 SCC 364 has observed as under:-
(3 of 3)
[2024:RJ-JD:2113-DB]
[CW-356/2024]
“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 the 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”.
In the present case, the petitioner has failed to establish that there is any violation of provisions of Rules of 1963 in allotting the land or the said allotment suffers from any malafides.
In views of the above, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
12-DivyaTak/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether judicial review can interfere with the government decision to allot government land for a public utility office.
Whether the petitioner demonstrated a violation of rules or malafides regarding the land allotment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
J.R. Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P.Referred¶27
(1988) 4 SCC 364 · Who else cites this
Jaikishan S/o Bhagwan Das
The State Of Rajasthan
District Collector, Nagaur
Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Shri Balaji
Gram Panchayat Shri Balaji
VIJAY BISHNOI
RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
