The construction activities on Patta Sudh Land cannot be stopped as there is no distinction for the construction of the premises with respect to the commercial activities to be carried on or the premises to be used for residential purposes.

ORDER

1. Although, the writ petition comes up on an application preferred by the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 for vacating the ex-parte interim order passed by this Court on 05.04.2018 but since the controversy involved in the present writ petition is very short, therefore, the writ petition is being heard and decided today itself.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer that the respondent authorities may be directed to restrain the private respondents from raising the commercial construction on the Patta Sudh Land and if any construction has been raised, the same may be ordered to be demolished. The petitioners are neighbours of the private respondents and the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 were issued Patta in the year 2016. He further submits that since the Patta issued by the Panchayat Samiti, Sayla is for raising the construction for the purpose of residence, the private respondents are misusing the same by raising the construction for commercial purposes. The petitioners, therefore, pray that the commercial construction undertaken by the private respondents is de-hors the law and the same should be demolished.

3. The private respondents have filed the reply and stated in their reply that the Revision Petition with respect to the cancellation of the Patta issued in favour of the respondents has also been filed and the same is pending consideration before the District Collector, Jalore.

4. Learned counsel further submits that while the respondents were undertaking the construction activities, there arose a dispute with respect to the measurement of land on the site and, therefore, in the circumstances, the private respondents filed a civil suit for possession and permanent injunction before the Senior Civil Judge, Jalore and the same is also pending consideration.

5. Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that in order to create pressure, a complaint was filed to the Sub Divisional Officer, Sayla. The Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) instructed the Block Development Officer (BDO) of the Panchayat Samiti to get the matter inquired through the Panchayat Extension Officer (PEO). The Panchayat Extension Officer in his report has stated that on the ground floor, shops have already been constructed and on the first floor, the construction for the residential premises is already in progress. He further stated that vide order dated 28.02.2017, Gram Panchayat, Sayla has granted the permission for construction. It is also stated that in the nearby areas of the present site, other constructions are in existence in which the commercial activities are being undertaken and to those premises, no permission for undertaking commercial activities has been issued. It is further stated that since in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1996, the provision is only for granting the permission for construction and the same is not distinguishable for undertaking residential or commercial construction, therefore, no fee was charged.

6. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, learned counsel submits that the entire endeavor of the petitioners is to stop the construction activities undertaken by the respondents and, therefore, filing of the writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is nothing but gross abuse of process of law.

7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the documents placed on record.

8. It is an admitted position that respondent Nos. 7 & 8 have been issued Patta by the Gram Panchayat, Sayla on which the construction activities are in progress. It is also a fact that the petitioners have filed an application for cancellation of the Patta and the proceedings for the same are pending consideration; on a dispute being arose between the parties with respect to the measurement of land, a civil suit is also pending consideration. It is also noted that a complaint has also