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. 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 al