PRABHATA Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an order of the Panchayat Samiti Chaksu which was confirmed by the Additional Collector, Jaipur.

(2.) THE petitioner owned a Kachvha house in village Kot Khawda which he wanted to convert into a Pucca one. He accordingly applied for permission to do so to the Panchayat of village Kot Khawda (Ex. R. 1 ). He stated in his application that he was willing to pay such Nazrana as the Panchayat may fix. Along with his application he filed a plan in which his house as well as neighbouring houses were shown. THE plan was drawn to scale. THE application of Prabhata was published by the Panchayat and objections were invited within one month and 3 days of the publication. One Shanker Khatik filed an objection but later on he withdrew it after entering into a compromise with Prabhata. A member of the Panchayat belonging to the ward in which the house was situated was asked to make a local inspection and he submitted a report. Two panchas were then deputed to take measurements on the spot. At that time the Kachcha house of the petitioner was standing. THEy took measurements of this house and recorded them. THEy found that the house measured 14-1/4 yds. from east to west and 9-1/4 yds. from north to south. On the report of these Panchas the Panchayat accorded the necessary permission to Prabhata to convert his house into a Pucca one and directed him to pay Nazrana at the rate of 31 np. per sq. yard. This resolution of the Panchayat is dated 3. 12. 61.

(3.) FURTHER the plan filed by the petitioner shows that the width of the passage between the Chabutra of the contesting respondents and the petitioner is 15 ft. This has been the width of this passage for a very long time eversince the Kachcha house of the petitioners was constructed. In the opinion of the Panchayat this passage was sufficiently wide for the passing of vehicular traffic in the village. There is no rule or bye law laying down that the width of the passages should be at least 17 ft. It is accordingly quite arbitrary for the Panchayat Samiti to direct that in reconstructing of his house the petitioner should leave 2 ft. of land more for passage. Rule 11 does provide that in granting or refusing sanction the Panchayat should bear in mind that the passage of vehicles will not be restricted. That only means that the width of the existing passage should not be reduced when an old building is reconstructed. It does not authorise the Panchayat to direct any one to leave some of his own land for the passage of vehicles while reconstructing his house. The power to regulate the construction, extension or alteration of buildings is intended to be utilised for maintaining the existing facilities and amenities mentioned in rule 11 rather than for enlarging them at the expense of the applicant.