MOOL CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS who are resident of Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk, have filed this writ petition in public interest as according to them they are interested in the preservation of public property and public utility places of village Diggi. Village Diggi is a place of pilgrim as the temple of Shri Kalyan Raiji Maharaj is situated there where several hundred thousands devotees come every year. On particular day in the year about one hundred thousand (one lac) people from Jaipur alone go on foot as PADYATRIES covering a distance of 85 kms. and similarly several thousand people from other places also. There is also a yearly fair known as 'jhulon KA MELA'. On this occasion also over a lac farmers and agriculturists attend the fair. There are 26 Dharamshalas in village Diggi which are used for staying of the pilgrims coming from various places. In village Diggi which falls under Gram Panchayat, there are three reservoirs, one of which is named as Megh Sagar Dam maintained by Irrigation Department and two tanks which are known as Vijay Sagar and Sharavan Sagar. PETITIONERS' case as set up in para 5 of the writ petition is that the above three dams and tanks are hardly sufficient to catre to the needs of the residents of Diggi as lacs of pilgrims visit Diggi every year. Their case then is that Megh Sagar dam is principally used as a source of irrigation and fields of the residents and agriculturists of village Diggi are supplied water through two canals known as right canal and left canal. This dam has been shown in the village map in Khasra No. 1371 measuring 22 bighas 8 biswas and is six feet deep. Besides this the area of the boundary (Pal) is 3 bighas 15 biswas comprising khasra No. 1373 and 5 bighas 2 biswas in khasra No. 1378, 5 bighas 19 biswas of land in khasra No. 1379 has been shown as a Khandi (pit) which has been formed as a result of taking of the sand at the time of construction of the dam and here also the depth of the water is about six feet and canal also passes through this Khandi. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, it is contended, irrigate their land through this water which is supplied through khandi and similarly 66 other cultivators making a total of 69 irrigate their lands through the water supplied. Revenue record has been produced in support of the aforesaid pleadings. The case of the petitioners is that Irrigation Department has a budget of maintenance of Rs. 80,000/- per year for this dam. Towards the South of this dam there is a public wharf (Ghat) ten feet in. length and ten feet in width for use of pilgrims. Towards the West of the Ghat there is a cattle-pond also for drinking water of the animals. Two public Urinals have also been constructed and towards the South out of 26 Dharamshalas in the village one of them belonging to respondent No. 6 is already constructed on two bighas of land, out of which 1-1/2 bighas towards its South is already lying vacant.

(2.) PETITIONERS' grievance is that non-petitioner No. 6 in 1991 entered into a conspiracy with Tehsildar, Malpura, respondent No. 4, and decided to illegally grap certain portion of the land comprised in Megh Sagar Dam. Tehsildar took an application from non-petitioner No. 6 for allotment of 5 bighas of land out of Khasra No. 1371 which is Megh Sagar Dam for construction of a Dharamshala and other public uses. The Tehsildar, Malpura addressed a letter to Administrator, Gram Panchayat, Diggi directing him to issue a No Objection Certificate for the allotment of the land in favour of non-petitioner No. 6, who following the directions issued No Objection Certificate. Tehsildar thereafter forwarded the papers to Collector, Tonk, who, in turn, submitted the papers to the State Government and the State Government without inviting objections from the public and without issuing any public notice, vide order dated 25. 1. 1993 sanctioned the allotment of 3 bighas 4 biswas of land out of 22 bighas, 8 biswas of khasra No. 1371 of Megh Sagar Dam to non-petitioner No. 6 for construction of water-hut, school premises, boarding houses and play-ground for the students. On receiving sanction from the State Government the Collector, Tonk vide his order, dated 19. 4. 1993 ordered the allotment vide Annexure 15. The petitioners' grievance is against the order~of the State Government, dated 25. 1. 1993 Annexure 1-4 sanctioning the land in favour of respondent No. 6 and the consequential of the order of the Collector, dated 19. 4. 1993 allotting the said land to respondent No. 6 and in this writ petition they have prayed for quashing both the orders mentioned above and seeking a further declaration that the land comprised in khasra No. 1371 of village Diggi, is not liable to be allotted for the purpose of construction of School-Boarding House, Dharamshala and allied purposes.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State has justified the allotment order and has submitted that the same has been done in public interest and it is submitted that Rule 1 of Allotment Rules of 1963 authorises the Collector for allotment of land mentioned therein. It is only that it can be done after the sanction of the State Goverment. It is submitted that allotment authority is a Collector and if Nazool and Abadi land is not available Collector himself can allot the land from unoccupied Government Agriculture land classified as Banzar or uncultivated Barani. It is only in case other than the aforesaid that land is to be allotted on previous approval of the State Government, is the condition precedent, therefore, in any other category even the land of the tank- bed is included. Therefore, the State Government has unfattered powers for allotment of any land. It is only! to see that public interest is not harmed and on the contrary it should be advanced. The State Government did not agree to allot 5 bighas of land as it found that allotment of 5 bighas of land will bring the submerged area also under construction and that would amount to re- claiming of the land and, therefore, allotted only 3 bighas 4 biswas of land which is on a corner where nearby other buildings have also been constructed. He thus supported the case of respondent No. 6.