Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J
Thakur Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
CW / 7957 / 2022
Decided On : 17-02-2025
(A) Panchayati Raj Act - Construction of Panchayat Bhawan - Dispute over land suitability for construction - Parties agree to refer the matter to the District Collector for a decision on the most suitable land for the Panchayat Bhawan - The District Collector is directed to pass a speaking order. (Paras 2-5)
(B) Administrative Decision - The District Collector is tasked with considering representations from parties and deciding the matter in the interest of the community. (Paras 3-4)
Facts of the case:
The parties disputed the suitability of land Khasra No.660/510 versus Khasra No.699/518 for the construction of a Panchayat Bhawan, leading to a request for the District Collector's intervention.
Findings of Court:
The court disposed of the writ petitions, allowing petitioners to represent before the District Collector, who must issue a speaking order based on the representations.
Issues: The main issue was determining which land was more beneficial for the construction of the Panchayat Bhawan.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a decision that serves the welfare of the community, directing the District Collector to consider all representations and pass a reasoned order.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions.
ORDER :
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the parties submit that for the construction of Panchayat Bhawan for Gram Panchayat, Annapurna, the land of Khasra No.660/510 is more appropriate, whereas the rival contentions have been raised that the land of Khasra No.699/518 is more conducive. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the matter may be sent to the District Collector, Balotra where the rival contentions will be raised on behalf of the parties and the District Collector, Balotra may be directed to take decision that over which land (Khasra No.699/518 or Khasra No. 660/510) the construction of Panchayat Bhawan is more beneficial for the people of that area by passing a speaking order.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that if such representations are filed, the same shall be decided by District Collector, Balotra and a decision for the welfare of the large number of people of that area will be taken by taking into consideration the more suitable place for construction of the Panchayat Bhawan.
4. In view of the submissions made before this Court, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to appear before the District Collector, Balotra by way of filing appropriate representations along with supporting documents and the rival contentions shall be decided by the District Collector, Balotra.
5. The District Collector, Balotra shall pass a speaking order for construction of the Panchayat Bhawan on the land which is more beneficial for the villagers of the area.
6. The petitioners shall appear before the District Collector, Balotra within a period of 10 days and the District Collector, Balotra shall decide the rival contentions within a period of three weeks thereafter.
The court directed the District Collector to decide on the suitable land for the Panchayat Bhawan, emphasizing the need for a reasoned decision in the interest of the community.
Judicial review of administrative decisions is limited to instances of legal violations or malafide actions, reaffirming the authority of government functionaries in public utility matters.
The State Government has exclusive jurisdiction over the site selection for Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan, and judicial interference is unwarranted.
Judicial intervention in administrative decisions regarding public utility construction is restricted to instances of legal violations or malafides.
Judicial review of administrative decisions related to the construction of public utility buildings is limited to cases of flagrant violation of law/rules or malafides.
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.
The court will not interfere with the decision of the State authorities regarding the construction of public buildings unless there is evidence of malafides or violation of statutory rules.
The petitioner must demonstrate malafide or violation of law to challenge the allotment of land for construction.
The court emphasized the importance of demonstrating malafide or violation of law in challenging administrative decisions such as land allotment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
