RAJKUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATION LA. No. 8584/2004 for intervention is allowed. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate, is allowed to intervene. The petitioner who is said to be a student of LL.B. Second Year has filed this petition purportedly in public interest under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India questioning the propriety and correctness of the policy decision to construct Chhattisgarh High Court building on Bilaspur-Raipur Road.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to filing of this petition are that under M.R Reorganization Act, 2000 the State of Chhattisgarh was carved out. Under the enabling powers of sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the said M.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (28 of 2000), His Excellency, the President of India appointed Principal Seat of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur with effect from 1st day of November, 2000. In pursuance of that notification the High Court of Chhattisgarh was established at Bilaspur and it started functioning in a school (old) building, the name of the school was 'NORMAL SCHOOL', provided by the State of Chhattisgarh after repair and renovation of the said building. However, as the said building was not sufficient for proper and comfortable functioning of the High Court with necessary infrastructure, therefore, a request on 24-11-2000 by the then Registrar General was made to the Collector, Bilaspur, and the Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Department, Govt, of Chhattisgarh, Raipur for allotment of a land for the purpose of construction of new High Court building. As borne out from the records available on this file, the Collector, Bilaspur in Revenue Case No. 59/A-19/2002-2003 vide order dated 24-4-2003 transferred a patch of 35.80 acres of land of Animal Husbandry Department, 54.74 acres of land of Thakur Chhedilal Barrister Agriculture College University Research Centre, Sarkanda, 2.94 acres of grass land, 1.30 acres of Water Resources Department's land, 0.40 acres of land of Water Resources Department, and 8.60 acres of land of Diary Department, and thereby up to 10-9-2003 total 103.78 acre land was transferred. It appears that the High Court again requested for some more extent of land, as the land allotted was considered to be insufficient and a request was made to transfer 31 acres of more land of Khasra No. 1081/1. The Collector then proposed for transfer of that land of Thakur Chhedilal Barrister Agriculture College, Sarkanda. In all, vide letter dated 16th/20th January, 2004, the Collector made a composite proposal for transfer of 134.78 acres of land and the said proposal was sent to the Government for approval. In the said proposal it was mentioned that condition prescribed under clause 1 to 36 of Revenue Book Circulars has to be complied with.

(3.) VIDE order dated 8-9-2003 Mr. R.P. Bagai, Vice Chancellor of Indira Gandhi Agricultural University wrote a letter to the Collector stating that if the land ad measuring 54.74 is allotted to the High Court, then only 7 acres of land will be left with the University which will not be sufficient to meet the requirement of the University. If it is allotted, then the Research Centre and College will have to be closed. On 14-10-2003, the Dean, Agricultural College and Research Centre, Sarkanda wrote a letter to the S.D.O., Revenue, requesting him to apprise him about the allotment of the land to the High Court so that he can apprise Vice Chancellor. Vide letter dated 20-10-2003 the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Medical Sciences sent a letter to the Collector expressing his inability to vacate the land and said that it is not possible to transfer 54.74 acres of land. Mr. R.P. Bagai, Principal Secretary, Agricultural Co-operative and Animal Husbandry wrote a letter to the Collector, Bilaspur on 13th November, 2003 stating that the Additional Collector and other Revenue Officers have given symbolic possession of 44.40 acres of land of the Govt. Veterinary Medical Sciences and 54.74 acres of Dr. Chhedilal Barrister, Agricultural College and Research Centre which is not permissible under clause-36 of the Revenue Book Circulars and the Department is not agreeable to give this land. Thereafter, the Collector sent a composite proposal to the Government on 20th January, 2004, but so far the Govt. had not sent any approval to the said proposal of the Collector. The Collector in his letter (Annexure-R/10) mentioned that for construction of new buildings of the Agricultural Department and Animal Husbandry Department an amount of 201.50 lacs will be required. In that it was proposed that it is justified to remove the existing buildings of these departments.