Back
2001 Supreme(Raj) 1049
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Honble DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, CJ. & P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.
Rajasthan Polo Club - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Others - Respondents
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 847 of 1996 & 7 Ors. Appeals
Decided On : September 25, 2001
S.R. Bajwa, Sr. Advocate, with V.P. Bishnoi, Rajendra Prasad and Vimal Chaudhary, for Petitioners R.K. Dhawan, Sr. Advocate, with K.K. Sharma, for Golf Club. Jagdeep Dhankhar, Sr. Advocate, with Ramesh Kumar, for Rajasthan Polo Club N.K. Joshi, for Jaipur
Headnote:Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959, Sec. 43, 54, 90, 52, 2(17), 16(h) & 21(2)(ix) and Disposal of Urban Land Rules, 1974, Rule 3,4 & 5 – Public Interest litigation – Writ of prohibition – Restraining the State Government from altering the status of any open space in Jaipur City including Ram Bagh complex, Golf Club, Polo Ground etc. and from carrying out any construction work – Settlement arrived between the parties – Prayed to allow withdrawal of original writ petition – Withdrawal was resisted by other writ petitioners – Legality of utilizing acquired land for the purpose of Golf Course, Polo ground and City level park – Held – Settlement arrived at was valid – Public interest litigation can be withdrawn in the interest of the public with leave of the Court only – Petitioners, who were not parties to the earlier proceedings at any stage, have no locus standi to approach the court in appeal even in public interest litigations – The State Government may utilize the acquired land for the purpose of Golf Course, Polo Ground and City level park in public interest – Authority has power to dispose of land by way of allotment, regularisation or auction – Permitted to withdraw the original writ petitions. (Para 115)
HELD : In our opinion, the decision, now taken by the Government, is just and fair, in the interest of both the clubs, which are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands in question, for the last so many decades.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold:
(a) The decision to enter into a settlement, in wednesbury reasonable.
(b) No mala fide, in fact, is alleged or proved.
(c) The arrangement does not create any title or proprietary rights in the clubs in question, which shall be under the close and pervasive control of the Authority.
(d) The arrangement is consistent with and fulfils the Master Plan.
(e) The scope of judicial review is limited. The decision is wednesbury reasonable and suffers from no procedural impropriety or illegality; this Court will not substitute its view for that of the Authority and play a secondary role; and there is no legal infirmity in the decision to settle and achieve the developmental purposes of recreation and sports, through golf and polo clubs.
(f) The settlement, arrived at by the State Government Rambagh Golf Club and Rajasthan Polo Club, is valid.
(g) The State is directed to implement and execute the settlement.
(h) Both the Writ Petitions Nos. 4114/2000 and 4692/2000, filed by petitioners Jitendra Shrimali & another and Ved Prakash Bishnoi respectively, are dismissed. No costs. The writ petitions Nos. 6826/94; 6855/94 and 1162/95, filed by Shri K.K. Sharma, M/s. Rambagh Golf Club and Dr. S.C. Kabra and another, are permitted to be withdrawn as the agreement arrived at between the State Government, Ram Bagh Golf Club and Rajasthan Polo Club is in accordance with law. By virtue of our holding that the settlement is valid and our permitting the petitioners to withdraw the writ petitions, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated, 24.5.96, shall not remain in force from today. (Para 115)
(2). Writ Petition No. 6855/94 was filed by M/s. Rambagh Golf Club, through its Joint Secretary, with the prayer that by a suitable order or direction, the action of the non-petitioner, in removing the barbed fencing around the petitioner-club, may be quashed and for further restraining from causing any damage to the green area, maintained by the petitioner. A further prayer was made to restrain the non-petitioners, from construction any road within the petitioner-club area; from cutting or uprooting the own trees within the petitioner-club area; and also from raising any construction or allotting any land within the area, possessed by the petitioner-club and Polo Ground.
(3). Writ Petition No. 1162/95 (by post), a public interest litigation, was made by one Dr. S.C. Kabra and another, requesting the Rajasthan High Court, to intervene and direct the State Government and the JDA, to maintain the entire area of the Rambagh Complex, as open green area and to declare this area as ``no-construction zone. They also requested to direct the State Government, not to approve any scheme/colony in the City of Jaipur, without adequate green areas to be located therein and further not to alter or reduce the existing developed green areas. They said in the petition that the people of the City shall ever remain grateful to this Court, for this act of kindness.
(4). All the three writ petitions were contested by the State of Rajasthan and the JDA. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petitions, imparted the following directions:-
``108. During the course of hearing it was brought to the notice of this Court that the green area over the land in question in use and occupation of the petitioner-club is being spoiled due to its misuse on account of concentration of large number of horses brought by polo players and, if not checked in time, this would result in damaging the green area of the Rambagh Complex besides causing irreparable damage to its grassy lawns. In view of t
