The administration has the discretion to decide the location of government/public buildings, and the court will not interfere unless the decision is irrational, arbitrary, or mala fide.

ORDER

1. The present PIL has been filed challenging the order whereby the land comprising of Khasra No. 1572 of village Saiyon Ka Tala has been allotted for the purpose of construction of Panchayat Bhawan of the newly formed Gram Panchayat.

2. It has been averred in the present Public Interest Litigation that although a more suitable land situated in the center of the village was surrendered by certain villagers for the construction of Panchayat Bhawan, the Sarpanch has, in his own interest, passed a resolution for the allotment of the land comprising of Khasra No. 1572 which is a land recorded as "Gochar" in the revenue records. It has further been averred that firstly, the gochar land cannot be allotted for any other purpose and secondly, the same being at a far distance from the center of the village would not be convenient for the villagers.

3. A reply has been filed on behalf of the State and it has been averred that the petitioner had surrendered the land on 16.06.2020 whereas the process for allotment of the land for construction of Panchayat Bhawan had been set in motion on 13.02.2020 itself. Secondly, the process for setting apart of the land in lieu of the gochar land has already been taken up by the revenue authorities and an equal land comprising of Khasra No. 1801/1602 has been set apart for the gochar purposes. For the same No Objection Certificate has also been issued by the Gram Panchayat.

4. Vide an additional affidavit filed on behalf of the State it has been brought on record that the construction of the Panchayat Bhawan has already been completed and an amount of almost Rs.35 Lacs has been spent for the same.

5. Counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgments passed by Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7228/2021 {Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13457/2021 (Samast Gramvasi, Gram Panchayat, Deluon Ka Tala Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).

6. A bare perusal of the record makes it clear that the construction of the Panchayat Bhawan has now been completed and substantial amount has been spent on the same. It is also clear on record that an equal land in lieu of the gochar land has already been set apart by the revenue authorities. As held in Samast Gramvasi's case (supra) by the Division Bench, it is the sole discretion of the administration to decide the issues as to where a government/public building is to be constructed. In Samast Gramvasi's case, the Division Bench held as under:

"Where the Panchayat Bhawan should be constructed is primarily a relief to be considered by the administration dependent on the ground realities particularly when the Panchayat Bhawan is to cater the needs of the villagers. The disputes invariably arise as to which Gram Panchayat should have the onus of having the Panchayat Bhawan constructed on the land. However, these are the issues to be judged by the administration and not by the Court. Unless the decision of the authority i.e. the Collector is shown to be irrational, arbitrary or mala fide, the Court would not interfere."

7. Moresoever, it is clear from the reply filed on behalf of the State that the present Panchayat Bhawan is situated on a location which is connected by pa/c/ca/tarmac road on two sides and is situated at equal distance that is 8 kilometers from the constituent revenue village of the gram panchayat Saiyon ka Tala; whereas on the contrary the land suggested by petitioner is situated 12 kilometers away from the constituent revenue village Durgoniyon ka Tala, which is in contravention to the guidelines of the state government wherein the distance from Gram Panchayat headquarter to its constituent villages cannot be more than 8 kilometers.

8. In view of the ratio laid down in Samast Gramvasi's case (supra) and in view of the fact that that the construction of the Panchayat Bhawan has since been completed, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present PIL.

9. At this juncture, counsel for