The court established that only parties with a legitimate interest in the matter can challenge government actions, emphasizing the importance of locus standi in legal proceedings.

ORDER

1. Today the matter is listed on application for vacation of the interim order dated 21.7.2020. Upon the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at this stage itself.

2. At the outset, counsel for the private respondent raises a preliminary objection that the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy available under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, therefore, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India could not have been invoked.

3. Counsel for the private respondent also submits that the petitioners are residents of Gram Panchayat, Alai, thus, they are not having any locus of filing present writ petition for the reason that the impugned order dated 08.3.2016 (Annex.11), decision and patta dated 21.03.2016 (Annex.12 & Annex.13), letter dated 24.06.2020 (Annex.42) are in regard to construction of Panchayat Bhawan, Atal Seva Kendra & other government buildings at Gram Panchayat, Dhundhwalo Ki Dhani and the nature of land mentioned in 'gair mumkeen abadi land' bearing Khasra No.1705/1988.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Pranjul Mehta, appearing for the State raises a preliminary objection that the petitioners have not impleaded the Department of Medical and Science as partyrespondent in the writ petition as the same is a necessary party because the petitioners have submitted that if the land in dispute is allotted by the respondent State for the purpose of construction of Panchayat Bhawan, Atal Seva Kendra & other government buildings, then the petitioners would not be able to further make any extension/ construction in the existing Primary Health Centre situated at Gram Panchayt, Dhundhwalo Ki Dhani, District Nagaur and, thus, prays that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party.

5. On the preliminary objection of locus being raised by learned counsel Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners in the capacity of Members of Jagdamba Charitable Trust and since the land in dispute vested with the Trust, therefore, the petitioners have locus to challenge the impugned order dated 08.3.2016 (Annex.11), decision and patta dated 21.03.2016 (Annex.12 & Annex.13), letter dated 24.06.2020 (Annex.42).

6. Counsel for the petitioner also makes a preliminary objection that the private respondents do not have a locus to the lis and, therefore, are not a necessary party in the writ petition, however, this Court finds that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.07.2020 after hearing on the application preferred on behalf of private respondents, who are residents of Gram Panchayat, Dhundhwalo Ki Dhani for being impleaded as partyrespondent in the writ petition, categorically observed that such application has not been seriously opposed by the counsel for the petitioners and vide order dated 21.07.2020 the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the aforesaid application.

7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that land upon which the Primary Health Centre is situated vested with Trust upto 2007 and thereafter possession of the land was handed-over by Jagdamba Trust to Government, however, learned counsel appearing for private respondent draws attention of this Court towards the communication dated 23.02.2017 (Annex.R8/1), which is an inter-communication between the Authorities of Department of the Medical & Health, in which, it has been categorically mentioned that the Primary Health Centre was established on 19.12.1986 with due sanction of the department and thereafter vide order dated 23.02.2017 (Annex. R8/1) name of existing Primary Health Centre was changed from Primary Health Centre, Alai, Panchayat Samiti, Nagaur to Primary Health Centre, Dhundhwalo Ki Dhani, Panchayat Samiti Nagaur, District Nagaur.

8. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the enquiry report of Zila Parishad, it has been specifically mentioned that t