Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 1365
[2025:RJ-JD:5409-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11463/2022
1. Hanuman Ram S/o Kesharam, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Vishnoi, Resident Of Village Punasa, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore (Rajasthan).
2. Kalchand Vishnoi S/o Bagaram, Aged About 34 Years, Village Punasa, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Jalore.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bhinmal, District Jalore.
4. The Tehsildar, Bhinmal, District Jalore.
5. Gram Panchayat Punasa, Panchayat Samiti Bhinmal, District Jalore Through Its Sarpanch.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Teja Ram Mr. Achla Ram For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kishan Lal Vishnoi Mr. Ravindra Jala HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
28/01/2025
1. This Public Interest Litigation is thoroughly misconceived and is essentially a petition against public interest.
2. The Collector, by impugned order dated 21.07.2022 set apart 0.50 hectare of land out of 12.32 hectare reserve for pasturage, for the purposes of cremation in revenue village Punasa.
3. Challenge to the aforesaid order is based on the ground that the allotment is being made for a particular community as the order is an outcome of a proposal initiated on the basis of an application for earmarking cremation ground for a particular community. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there already exists a cremation ground in the village and therefore there is no need to provide any additional land for cremation purposes.
4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the order passed by the Collector on 21.07.2022 is clear that the additional land for cremation purposes has been set apart for all communities and it has not been allotted to any particular community.
5. He would next submit that taking into consideration the demand of additional space for cremation purposes, the Collector has exercised its discretion. He would further submit that the equal area of land situated in khasra No.161 of the same village has been set apart for pasturage, therefore, in the village the total area for pasture is not diminished.
6. Having considering the submissions made by the parties we are of the view that there is neither any illegality in passing order nor it is against public interest. Since the area set apart for cremation is not allotted to any particular community but for all communities which is clear from the impugned order itself even if we accept that the proposal was moved by any particular community, the order is not liable to be interfered with.
7. Learned counsel for the State stated that the additional space provided for cremation ground would be available to all and no particular community would be allowed to claim exclusive use. We also make it clear that the additional space provided for cremation purposes shall not be claimed for exclusive use by any community in revenue village Punasa. The Collector shall ensure that no community claims exclusive use. Any such claim would be treated to be in violation of the direction issued by this Court.
8. How much additional space is to be provided for cremation purposes is essentially a matter in the realm of administrative function and it is not for the Court to decide the area required for cremation purposes. As far as diminishing of pasture area is concerned, we find that equal area of the land for pasture has been provided in the khasra No.161. Therefore, it cannot be said that by the impugned order, public interest has been adversely affected.
9. Therefore, no case is made out. The instant civil writ petition stands dismissed.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
36-charul/-
